Giocoleria da diporto
2023-04-14 16:52:11 UTC
On the fiftieth birthday of the greatest living technical juggler, now
retired, namely Anthony Commarota, AKA Anthony Gatto, and three days
after the broadcast and publication on YouTube of the first live
edition for the United Kingdom of the Numbers Juggling League, it seems
the right time to raise some questions about the regulation of this
type of competitions.
I don't understand why both the IJA regulation and the NJL regulation
foresee a logic similar to that of the high jump, for which the winner
for each of the categories up for grabs (balls, clubs and rings are
those present in both competitions) is the one who manages to make more
catches with the highest number of props.
If the same logic were applied, for example, to athletics, whoever did
the best time in the 400 meters race should be the winner over the best
time in the 100 meters race. But evidently the technique and the
progression of the 100 meters is quite different from the technique and
the progression of the 400 meters. Just as the 8 ball technique is
completely different from the 11 ball technique, and with the 8 ball
you can still afford to use normal beanbags and not the underfilled and
somewhat shapeless ones needed for the 11 ball start. In short,
something very different from jumping with the ventral technique or
with the Fosbury flop.
Why not have a separate competition for each number of props? Using the
logic of the high jump, the WJF now starts its competitions directly
from the 9 balls, skipping the 8 balls even if it remains a specialty
for excellent jugglers only. Certainly the fact that many jugglers skip
the 8 balls to focus their trainings on 9 balls, having trained much
more with the 7 than the 6 balls, played a part in this choice.
With current logic, a juggler who succeeded in the epic result of
making 100 catches with 10 balls would lose if another juggler managed
to catch 11 balls 22 times: does all of this sound good to you?
Thanks so much to Eivind Dragsjø and Tom Whitfield for what they are
doing to spread the culture of playfully competitive juggling with
large amounts of props ��, and I really hope they will reflect a bit on
the incongruities of such an approach.
Enjoy juggling!
retired, namely Anthony Commarota, AKA Anthony Gatto, and three days
after the broadcast and publication on YouTube of the first live
edition for the United Kingdom of the Numbers Juggling League, it seems
the right time to raise some questions about the regulation of this
type of competitions.
I don't understand why both the IJA regulation and the NJL regulation
foresee a logic similar to that of the high jump, for which the winner
for each of the categories up for grabs (balls, clubs and rings are
those present in both competitions) is the one who manages to make more
catches with the highest number of props.
If the same logic were applied, for example, to athletics, whoever did
the best time in the 400 meters race should be the winner over the best
time in the 100 meters race. But evidently the technique and the
progression of the 100 meters is quite different from the technique and
the progression of the 400 meters. Just as the 8 ball technique is
completely different from the 11 ball technique, and with the 8 ball
you can still afford to use normal beanbags and not the underfilled and
somewhat shapeless ones needed for the 11 ball start. In short,
something very different from jumping with the ventral technique or
with the Fosbury flop.
Why not have a separate competition for each number of props? Using the
logic of the high jump, the WJF now starts its competitions directly
from the 9 balls, skipping the 8 balls even if it remains a specialty
for excellent jugglers only. Certainly the fact that many jugglers skip
the 8 balls to focus their trainings on 9 balls, having trained much
more with the 7 than the 6 balls, played a part in this choice.
With current logic, a juggler who succeeded in the epic result of
making 100 catches with 10 balls would lose if another juggler managed
to catch 11 balls 22 times: does all of this sound good to you?
Thanks so much to Eivind Dragsjø and Tom Whitfield for what they are
doing to spread the culture of playfully competitive juggling with
large amounts of props ��, and I really hope they will reflect a bit on
the incongruities of such an approach.
Enjoy juggling!
--
As the ancient Romans wished: «Ad multos annos, Antoni!»
As the ancient Romans wished: «Ad multos annos, Antoni!»