Jugglicious

Post by **Foo** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:30 pm

First, check out Chris Bliss syncing 3-ball moves up with some music.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4656145640

In all honesty - not unimpressive. But syncing is easy and doing it with 3 balls is trivial at best.

Hence, witness this parody of the same routine:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 39&pl=true

OWNED

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:36 pm

nah not owned at all

the second dude had no passion - it was pure technical brilliance and not much else.

it was also highly disrespectful imo

Post by **andyman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:40 pm

that was fucking awesome!!

Post by **Foo** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:40 pm

I was a little at odds with why he would pick a fellow juggler to lampoon.
Having said that, the first performer clearly got far more attention than was warranted.

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:40 pm

where are the juggs?

Post by **andyman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:41 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:nah not owned at all

the second dude had no passion - it was pure technical brilliance and not much else.

it was also highly disrespectful imo

wtf are you talking about??? so if i have enough passion i can juggle???

he did it better than the first guy. that is all.

Post by **Grudge** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm

the second guy seems like a dick

Post by **andyman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:47 pm

the first guy seemed like a dick.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:18 pm

andyman wrote:
[xeno]Julios wrote:nah not owned at all

the second dude had no passion - it was pure technical brilliance and not much else.

it was also highly disrespectful imo
wtf are you talking about??? so if i have enough passion i can juggle???

he did it better than the first guy. that is all.

you should watch Jordan Peterson's talk: "Chaos and the orienting response: A neurobiologically predicated model of why you might be Christ"

In it, he gives an example of a gymnast - technically brilliant, who has spent 15 years practicing the same moves over and over and has mastered them.

Then you have the gymnast who brings courage into the performance, and is always poised at the edge of chaos - surfing that thin line between order and chaos - and how the audience can feel it.

The first gets a 7.7/10 and the second gets a 9.9 or 10

there was simply no soul in the second performance - and probably because it was an imitation which didn't spring from the same cognitive reservoirs as Bliss' did.

here's the link to the talk i was talking about - excellent stuff - the guy's a prof here at my uni.

http://www.counterbalance.net/neurotheo/jpet-lg.ram

if u want to see the slides that go along with the talk, see this page

http://psych.utoronto.ca/~peterson/Mont ... /frame.htm

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:49 pm

btw for those who don't know, Chris Bliss is a writer/comedian.

http://www.chrisbliss.com/home.html

Post by **andyman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:19 pm

well it's obvious then that the first guy had to replace 'skill' with 'soul' and the second guy had more than enough 'skill' to have to rely on 'soul'.

to add on: it is the same reason i don't like college football. they try to replace skill with effort and heart, when the pros are just plain skilled, which makes it better to watch for me.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:20 pm

andyman wrote:well it's obvious then that the first guy had to replace 'skill' with 'soul' and the second guy had more than enough 'skill' to have to rely on 'soul'.

you're completely missing my point.

furthermore, bliss' performance was extremely skillful.

now go watch that talk

Post by **andyman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:21 pm

then why didn't he do it with 5 balls? pressure to not fail?

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:18 pm

andyman wrote:then why didn't he do it with 5 balls? pressure to not fail?

probably because he can't do it with 5 balls. Again, you're completely missing the point.

Post by **plained** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:22 pm

fuc thats it im done gone conservative :icon33:

Post by **Foo** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:24 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:
andyman wrote:then why didn't he do it with 5 balls? pressure to not fail?
probably because he can't do it with 5 balls. Again, you're completely missing the point.

I think everyone gets your point, it's just noone things much of it.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:30 pm

Foo wrote:
[xeno]Julios wrote:
andyman wrote:then why didn't he do it with 5 balls? pressure to not fail?
probably because he can't do it with 5 balls. Again, you're completely missing the point.
I think everyone gets your point, it's just noone things much of it.

you're telling me that you honestly don't see a difference between the two performances (skill aside?)

or, even worse, is skill the only thing you are able to detect in a performance?

If it's the latter, then that's probably an issue that needs to be addressed from your end before engaging in this discussion.

or perhaps skill is the only thing you value in a performance.

Here's the way I see it - Bliss' performance was brilliant art.

Garfield's performance was technical brilliance and poor art.

Who's a better juggler? Garfield hands down - he is, after all, a professional juggler.

Post by **Foo** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:32 pm

Bliss' performance was brilliant art and amazing skill.

Garfield's performance was technical brilliance and poor art.

I notice that in the area where you would have to concede Garfield's superiority, you choose to instead alter the wording you use to make it seem less significant.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:33 pm

Honestly Jules, if you were using something besides musical juggling to make your point, I think it would garner a little more attention.

I only notice the "on the edge" competitiveness in activities that I personally like or participate in myself, and the juggling bit is a little less than "intense."

I've watched about half that lecture though - pretty interesting direction he's taking it.

Post by **andyman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:34 pm

julios i think you need to realize that it is just juggling. nothing that special.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:40 pm

Foo wrote:
Bliss' performance was brilliant art and amazing skill.

Garfield's performance was technical brilliance and poor art.
I notice that in the area where you would have to concede Garfield's superiority, you choose to instead alter the wording you use to make it seem less significant.

eh?

wtf - it's clear that garfield is a better juggler - that is what his career is - a fucking juggler.

and insofar as he captured the technical aspects of bliss' performance, he mimicked and exceeded Bliss.

But he completely failed to capture the soul of the original performance.

Watch Bliss' performance carefully - there's a lot more than juggling going on.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:42 pm

andyman wrote:julios i think you need to realize that it is just juggling. nothing that special.

R00k wrote:Honestly Jules, if you were using something besides musical juggling to make your point, I think it would garner a little more attention.

ah gotta love prejudice.

When a mammal engages in throwing and catching objects in a complex fashion, we other mammals shall deem it JUGGLING, and value it solely as a display of technical skill.

God forbid someone decides to do something a little bit different, and use the activity as a MEDIUM for an artistic performance.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:48 pm

Hey, I understand what you're saying man, but not everybody has the same taste in art either.

You say Monet, I say Manet, see?

Post by **andyman** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:49 pm

BASED ON THE TWO VIDEOS, WHAT MAKES HIM BETTER. AND DON'T SAY 'SOUL'.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:54 pm

andyman wrote:BASED ON THE TWO VIDEOS, WHAT MAKES HIM BETTER. AND DON'T SAY 'SOUL'.

good question.

Garfield looks completely bored. He isn't pushing himself like Chris is.

Chris is pushing himself - it's abundantly clear (to me) that he's heavily engaged in that state of mind which involves risk of chaos. He's pushing himself JUST beyond the boundaries of what he's comfortable with, and as a result, there is an emergent complexity (which is manifest in his body language, for example).

There's no emotional resonance watching Garfield.