Perhaps of interest: I came across this retrospective of the author of that site and how he moved it to static hosting a couple of years ago [1].
I would also say that this library covers more or less the “lower half” of solo ball juggling in terms of difficulty. With lower ball counts (say ≤ 4), there are a lot of these patterns that have complex arm movements and can be difficult to explain with words, so having such a listing with animations and step-by-step instructions is very valuable. Starting with 4 balls, there’s less and less time for moving your arms around and it is more about the sequence of heights of the throws, which are well described with just their numeric “siteswap” pattern and you can learn them just from knowing the number sequence. The site has only the most basic of those (e.g. 534) and even very common 4-ball (7531, 633) patterns are missing with hardly anything beyond that.
Juggling is one of hobbies with the highest ratios of being able to impress random people versus the actual effort you have to put in, and I generally find I never forget 3-ball stuff I learned as a kid. It's also as good as a long walk for getting you out of your head when needed.
Shout out to anyone that remembers the Mushy Pea juggling shop in Manchester many years ago, where I learned all sorts of circus skills.
Juggling 3 is a skill that is way easier than people think until they do it. But the very next question is will be, "how many can you juggle?" as they apparently think juggling 4 is just 33% more difficult than 3.
It’s also fun that you can tweak it without the layperson even noticing the change in relative difficulty.
Cascade pattern = easy difficulty
Shower pattern = normal difficulty
Box pattern = hard difficulty
As someone who loves to run their hands up and down in the piano in grand sweeping arpeggios, I'm a huge fan of patterns where the perceived difficulty is higher than the actual difficulty.
For those wondering: to juggle 4 balls, you either have to decrease the time between catching a ball and throwing it again or increase the time a ball is in the air.
Unless you start throwing feathers or balloons, the latter requires you throw higher. That requires you to either spend more time launching them up (bad for the ‘decrease time between catching and throwing’) or use more force (bad for throwing accuracy.
Also, even assuming you juggle 4 balls keeping “time in hand” equal, you have to throw it higher by a factor of (4/3)². That’s almost 2.
And even if you manage to make those throws with the same accuracy in angles, the errors in location by the time you catch the balls scale by the same factor.
> you either have to decrease the time between catching a ball and throwing it again or increase the time a ball is in the air
I think you might be thinking of 5 ball juggling.
4 ball juggling (or at least it's most common variant, "The Fountain" [0]) is fascinating because it's really juggling two balls in each hand in a way that makes it appear similar to the standard cascade. Though this may sound "less hard" than what people initially imagine, it's a very different feeling than all the basics you learn using only 3 balls.
They're not wrong. Assuming alternating hands are doing the throwing (rather than both hands throwing a ball simultaneously), 4-ball patterns mean each ball is in the air for 4 beats, while 3-ball patterns only take 3 beats each.
And once one realises that many juggling patterns can be understood by the number of beats each ball takes to return to a hand, one can then think in siteswap (https://juggle.fandom.com/wiki/Siteswap).
In my experience people can’t even tell how many balls you’re juggling after 3. 4, 5, 6, 7 all get “how many balls is that”, silly stuff like 3 ball factory blows more minds than 5 ball site swaps
Also, with a three ball pattern, most of the time there's only a single ball in the air. With four, there are almost always two. The odds of a mid-air collision increase significantly, and go up as the number of balls increases.
That also forces you to have much more consistent throws which, as you note, gets harder because you also have to throw higher which scales up any error in the force you're applying.
I've also found it to be a magical incantation to silence crying babies. Sometimes I'll quickly flash (juggle for one round) three random objects to shut up a baby in public and their parents don't even notice.
Rubik's cubing is another. Most people here with enough logical aptitude to be programmers could probably learn a beginner method in a day or two. I'll pick up a cube anywhere I see one scrambled, solve it in a couple minutes, and then the last flourish is to leave it in the checkerboard pattern.
I also juggle, and the result of the combination is that approximately every single person on Facebook has posted to me the video about solving cubes while juggling them...
The biggest difference about Rubik's cubing is that once you have mastered 3x3x3, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5 (which is just a slight variant on 3x3x3) all subsequent cubes are just natural extensions of these. A 17x17x17 requires no new skills that aren't already mastered in a 5x5x5, it just takes more time. The nice part of about this is you can really blow peoples minds by pulling out an 11x11x11 cube and solving it at though it were nothing.
Even sided cubes are the hardest because they have issues with "parity" that are only uncovered near the end of the solve and can be quite tedious to fix (at least imho).
Right, cubing scales up much more readily than juggling. Although I've found the bigger cubes aren't quite so impressive because you can't do them as fast. I take 10-15 minutes for the 5x5x5, and by then any observer has lost interest.
But yeah, some people will be impressed just because it's bigger. They always say that it must be super hard. My stock reply: "It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Is 1000 piece harder than 500? Not really harder, it's just more of the same thing." Sometimes that gets a blank look, sometimes that induces enlightenment.
My favorite cuboid variant is a 3x3x4. That blows people's minds when they see it's not symmetric, and they handle it and realize that it can't do certain turns (the long axes have to be 180° not 90°), but in fact that limitation makes it easier and I can solve it almost as fast as a 3x3x3.
When I was learning to juggle, that was the first step - and for someone who's never really tried to juggle, or toss a ball up and down in a very consistent way, it's surprisingly hard. Honestly, probably not a 1 on the scale.
I remember happily going through these each day after school until I could do everything.
There wasn't much on YouTube at the time but I also think YouTube is a worse resource for pretty much all of these simple tricks. All you need is a slow loop to learn any ball juggling trick.
There was also a similar site that let you input siteswaps.
The noob gains once you get comfortable with 3 balls are addictive, compared to later patterns or tricks that can take hours, days or even weeks to pick up.
Those animations - the stick figures moving red balls - were all over Tumblr a few months ago, with people creating all sorts of interesting animations out of them. You can find them by searching for "juggling lab".
Sadly, doing the trick with a single ball yields a FactorySingleton and scores an extra Java point, but doesn’t impress as much. We can’t have nice things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
It takes me back to a time when I could find a wide variety of websites online. I love this kind of thing... Not something I would deliberately look for but great to stumble across it.
I click on Box pattern. It says that before trying the Box, one should master the HalfBox pattern. I want to see how the HalfBox pattern looks like, so I try to click on HalfBox, but it's not a hyperlink. So I look to the left, where Box is, and try to look for HalfBox under Box. It's not there (it's not even under the letter H, because it's under the number 441).
On the Box page, HalfBox is in a square frame on the top-right. If wikipedia were like this it would be unusable.
Perhaps of interest: I came across this retrospective of the author of that site and how he moved it to static hosting a couple of years ago [1].
I would also say that this library covers more or less the “lower half” of solo ball juggling in terms of difficulty. With lower ball counts (say ≤ 4), there are a lot of these patterns that have complex arm movements and can be difficult to explain with words, so having such a listing with animations and step-by-step instructions is very valuable. Starting with 4 balls, there’s less and less time for moving your arms around and it is more about the sequence of heights of the throws, which are well described with just their numeric “siteswap” pattern and you can learn them just from knowing the number sequence. The site has only the most basic of those (e.g. 534) and even very common 4-ball (7531, 633) patterns are missing with hardly anything beyond that.
[1]: https://ianconvy.github.io/projects/other/libraryofjuggling/...
Juggling is one of hobbies with the highest ratios of being able to impress random people versus the actual effort you have to put in, and I generally find I never forget 3-ball stuff I learned as a kid. It's also as good as a long walk for getting you out of your head when needed.
Shout out to anyone that remembers the Mushy Pea juggling shop in Manchester many years ago, where I learned all sorts of circus skills.
Juggling 3 is a skill that is way easier than people think until they do it. But the very next question is will be, "how many can you juggle?" as they apparently think juggling 4 is just 33% more difficult than 3.
It’s also fun that you can tweak it without the layperson even noticing the change in relative difficulty.
As someone who loves to run their hands up and down in the piano in grand sweeping arpeggios, I'm a huge fan of patterns where the perceived difficulty is higher than the actual difficulty.For those wondering: to juggle 4 balls, you either have to decrease the time between catching a ball and throwing it again or increase the time a ball is in the air.
Unless you start throwing feathers or balloons, the latter requires you throw higher. That requires you to either spend more time launching them up (bad for the ‘decrease time between catching and throwing’) or use more force (bad for throwing accuracy.
Also, even assuming you juggle 4 balls keeping “time in hand” equal, you have to throw it higher by a factor of (4/3)². That’s almost 2.
And even if you manage to make those throws with the same accuracy in angles, the errors in location by the time you catch the balls scale by the same factor.
> you either have to decrease the time between catching a ball and throwing it again or increase the time a ball is in the air
I think you might be thinking of 5 ball juggling.
4 ball juggling (or at least it's most common variant, "The Fountain" [0]) is fascinating because it's really juggling two balls in each hand in a way that makes it appear similar to the standard cascade. Though this may sound "less hard" than what people initially imagine, it's a very different feeling than all the basics you learn using only 3 balls.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(juggling)
They're not wrong. Assuming alternating hands are doing the throwing (rather than both hands throwing a ball simultaneously), 4-ball patterns mean each ball is in the air for 4 beats, while 3-ball patterns only take 3 beats each.
And once one realises that many juggling patterns can be understood by the number of beats each ball takes to return to a hand, one can then think in siteswap (https://juggle.fandom.com/wiki/Siteswap).
In my experience people can’t even tell how many balls you’re juggling after 3. 4, 5, 6, 7 all get “how many balls is that”, silly stuff like 3 ball factory blows more minds than 5 ball site swaps
Also, with a three ball pattern, most of the time there's only a single ball in the air. With four, there are almost always two. The odds of a mid-air collision increase significantly, and go up as the number of balls increases.
That also forces you to have much more consistent throws which, as you note, gets harder because you also have to throw higher which scales up any error in the force you're applying.
Much easier to learn to juggle three clubs, and then swap them for knives. Really no harder than 3 balls but significantly more flashy.
Don't forget about fire. Even the most boring of moves amaze crowds when half your equipment is burning.
I've also found it to be a magical incantation to silence crying babies. Sometimes I'll quickly flash (juggle for one round) three random objects to shut up a baby in public and their parents don't even notice.
Rubik's cubing is another. Most people here with enough logical aptitude to be programmers could probably learn a beginner method in a day or two. I'll pick up a cube anywhere I see one scrambled, solve it in a couple minutes, and then the last flourish is to leave it in the checkerboard pattern.
I also juggle, and the result of the combination is that approximately every single person on Facebook has posted to me the video about solving cubes while juggling them...
The biggest difference about Rubik's cubing is that once you have mastered 3x3x3, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5 (which is just a slight variant on 3x3x3) all subsequent cubes are just natural extensions of these. A 17x17x17 requires no new skills that aren't already mastered in a 5x5x5, it just takes more time. The nice part of about this is you can really blow peoples minds by pulling out an 11x11x11 cube and solving it at though it were nothing.
Even sided cubes are the hardest because they have issues with "parity" that are only uncovered near the end of the solve and can be quite tedious to fix (at least imho).
Right, cubing scales up much more readily than juggling. Although I've found the bigger cubes aren't quite so impressive because you can't do them as fast. I take 10-15 minutes for the 5x5x5, and by then any observer has lost interest.
But yeah, some people will be impressed just because it's bigger. They always say that it must be super hard. My stock reply: "It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Is 1000 piece harder than 500? Not really harder, it's just more of the same thing." Sometimes that gets a blank look, sometimes that induces enlightenment.
My favorite cuboid variant is a 3x3x4. That blows people's minds when they see it's not symmetric, and they handle it and realize that it can't do certain turns (the long axes have to be 180° not 90°), but in fact that limitation makes it easier and I can solve it almost as fast as a 3x3x3.
I find it fascinating that it uses a 2-9 scale to grade difficulty.
The rating is described as a rating "1 - 10"
But every trick is actually graded 2 to 9. ( https://libraryofjuggling.com/TricksByDifficulty.html )
Presumably no-one ever wanted to define a grade 1, just in case an easier one was discovered, and similarly for 10.
Well, do we really even need to discuss juggling 1? I just call that tossing the ball around...
> do we really even need to discuss juggling 1?
When I was learning to juggle, that was the first step - and for someone who's never really tried to juggle, or toss a ball up and down in a very consistent way, it's surprisingly hard. Honestly, probably not a 1 on the scale.
I remember happily going through these each day after school until I could do everything.
There wasn't much on YouTube at the time but I also think YouTube is a worse resource for pretty much all of these simple tricks. All you need is a slow loop to learn any ball juggling trick.
There was also a similar site that let you input siteswaps.
The noob gains once you get comfortable with 3 balls are addictive, compared to later patterns or tricks that can take hours, days or even weeks to pick up.
Those animations - the stick figures moving red balls - were all over Tumblr a few months ago, with people creating all sorts of interesting animations out of them. You can find them by searching for "juggling lab".
As a Java developer, I recommend Factory trick. Simple, but impresses people the most
https://libraryofjuggling.com/Tricks/3balltricks/Factory.htm...
Sadly, doing the trick with a single ball yields a FactorySingleton and scores an extra Java point, but doesn’t impress as much. We can’t have nice things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
What a great website aesthetic, takes me way back to when the Internet felt a lot smaller.
It takes me back to a time when I could find a wide variety of websites online. I love this kind of thing... Not something I would deliberately look for but great to stumble across it.
Usage map indicates that either Alaska is a heretofore undiscovered hotbed of juggling or Cloudflare analytics are countrywide
The website is great, but I find the lack of hyperlinks maddening.
Are we looking at the same website? The one I'm looking at is like 40% hyperlinks.
I click on Box pattern. It says that before trying the Box, one should master the HalfBox pattern. I want to see how the HalfBox pattern looks like, so I try to click on HalfBox, but it's not a hyperlink. So I look to the left, where Box is, and try to look for HalfBox under Box. It's not there (it's not even under the letter H, because it's under the number 441).
On the Box page, HalfBox is in a square frame on the top-right. If wikipedia were like this it would be unusable.