🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ilotcINNdjj@gap.caltech.edu> allenk@ugcs.caltech.edu (Allen Knutson) writes:

   naw@planet.bt.co.uk (Ab Wilson) writes:

   >doing and you have two arcs to keep track of. (One of the biggest
   >difficulties with the half shower as getting both arcs into the field
   >of view.)

   Ah, perhaps this is the difference. I juggle a good bit lower than
   the average, and can easily see both balls. For 53 the 5's are 
   naturally at eye height (though I can get them lower).

If your doing a 53 in the proper rhythm and the 5s are at eye height,
then the 3 are going to be going about 2 inches high, which for me
would still be out of my field of view if I was looking at the 5s. A
comfortable 53 for me would have the 5s about 2 feet above my head,
with the 3s comming to just about level with my nose. (The lowest I
can see while still looking at the 5s).

   >Now I put it to you as a five ball juggler, which 5 ball trick would
   >you rather attempt, the half shower 73, or the full shower 91. Bear in
   >mind the height difference in the 73 is going to be even greater than
   >in the 53, and you have that awkward floaty 3 to take care of.

   Okay, now it gets ridiculous. But this is not how I would recommend to
   anyone how to half-shower 5: they should try [64], a synchronous pattern,
   and one I can do much much much longer than 91. (Sometimes it feels
   easier than 5, in fact.) Have you compared these two?
	Allen K.

Yeh, but the whole point to me of doing a half shower is that is is an
asyncronous pattern. I'll agree that [64] would be easier than 91.
Also I'd agree that [44] is easier than 53. But then the main thing
that made 53 hard for me was getting the hands to throw to different
height consistently.
	Ab.


-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Who's opinions did you say these were?    |    naw@planet.bt.co.uk |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+