Subject:       JIS Numbers Records Committee - Some Concerns about its mandate 
From:          Arthur Lewbel < alewbel@lemberg.brandeis> 
Date:          23 Apr 1996 16:01:03 GMT
Message-ID     <4liurv$l1m@new-news.cc.brandeis.edu> 
Organization:  Default Usenet Organization
Newsgroups     rec.juggling



I'm not good with quotations, but I believe Einstein said that the problem with most scientists is 
that they drill where the wood is thinnest, meaning that they tackle the small easy problems instead 
of the tough hard ones. 
I think that the JIS numbers record committee, at least as currently envisioned by its founders, 
suffers the same problem. Basically it now says, "If you prove to us you juggled exactly the way we 
say you must do it, then we'll say you did it." Well big whoop. (though I admit that even this is an 
improvement over the current situation). 
A few good jugglers, especially rec.jugglers, may bother to read and follow our rules and send us 
their tapes. I expect most won't.
Imagine the committee as currently designed does its job for a few years. In 1998 Guinness calls: 
Guinness: "Are you the new authority on juggling records?" Committee: "Yes."
G: "We've seen the error of our ways. We want to get the juggling records exactly right this time. What's the 
record for most clubs juggled?" C: "I don't know. Gatto, I guess, but his dad never sent us a tape of him doing 
it."
G: "I need to know. Should I call Gene Jones?"
C: "No."
G: "Ok, we'll make up something for clubs. How about the ball record?" C: "We have lovely tape of Boppo flashing 
12 balls. He followed all of our rules doing it."
G: "The IJA told me that some guy named Anthony Sergei Bruce Vladik did 13, with a 100 jugglers as witnesses."
C: "That may be true, but he never sent us signed affidavits from those witnesses so our committee can't verify it 
as official."
G: "OK, we'll just say he juggled as opposed to showered 13."
 etc.,.
The hard and useful job, the thick wood, would be to define who the best jugglers were and are by 
a range of criteria, documented as accurately as possible. The goal should be to become, 
collectively, the most respected and knowledgable authority on juggling records. If a newspaper 
reporter, or Guinness, or Kaskade called us and asked, "Who can juggle the most rings? Who's the 
best ping pong ball spitter in the world? Who's the fastest joggler?" we should be able to answer 
(in most cases the answer would not be a single name, but a list of different names associated 
with specific accomplishments, e.g., "The most rings known to have been performed on a regular 
basis was Ignatov's 9, and he occasionally flashed 11 in performance. Gatto claimed to have 
worked on 13, but the most proven to have ever been flashed by videotape is Lucas's 12, etc.,." 
(note I'm not claiming any of the previous quotation is correct, I only mean it as an example of 
the kind of statement the committee should be able to produce.) 
After we are a respected authority, then maybe our choice of rules and criteria will be taken 
seriously by the world beyond rec.juggling, and record breakers will have some incentive to 
document things our way. Until then, most working numbers jugglers will continue to have 
incentives to keep things muddy. If lucas flashed 12, isn't it better for his career if the 
distinction between whether he flashed or juggled is kept fuzzy? Dozens of jugglers now call 
themselves the world's faster juggler - none of them would want an objective measure, since then 
all but one would lose the billing, and that one would have to worry that someone faster didn't 
come along. The idea that any of them would even ask us, much less pay us, to choose among them 
is absurd. 
The committee should do the valuable, important, hard work of becoming the records authority, 
collecting as much evidence as possible about every existing claim. We could publish lists of 
known and claimed records, along with all available supporting evidence, including joint 
statements by the committee on the likely veracity of each claim. Clarifying rules and 
definitions about what it means to do a juggle is only a tiny piece of this work.
I have been invited to join the committee. I hereby accept the invitation, but with trepidation. 
I hope that from inside I can sway the committee to the above agenda, but if all we do after 
months is further refine our definitions of a collection vs. a gather and argue about whether to 
charge 10 bucks to accept a tape, I'll soon drop out.
Any rec.jugglers with comments or opinions on this should post them here, or email them to me or 
to the committee.
	Arthur Lewbel
P.S. note my new email address:

alewbel@lemberg.brandeis.edu
My old address still works, but I'd perfer jugglers to use this new one.