Speaking as a juggler: I've seen Gatto in performance (in Kooza in 2008); he's every bit as good as the article says. I've also seen (and met) many other top jugglers.
And yet, to be honest, while I appreciate the talent and skill required to do the kinds of numbers and moves Gatto does, and even though I understand the difficulty of pulling off, e.g., 7 clubs or 7-ball 5-up 360s or 6-club backcrosses — I find this type of juggling fairly boring to watch. No matter how much showmanship you put into it, every performing juggler eventually realizes that technical skill means very little and audiences get bored after about 3 minutes. Most good jugglers with long shows do comedy and variety routines. Gatto clearly didn't want to go down that road. I respect that.
My favorite juggler to watch is Falco Scheffler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmnaICnMiw — no high numbers here, just 3 and 4 balls. And way more fun to watch than endless runs of 5 club backcrosses.
A performing juggler once told me (an amateur),
after he showed me a technically challenging bit:
There are bits you do for an audience, and there are
bits you do for other jugglers. It sounds like Gatto
liked the doing the technical bits more than he liked working for
an audience.
Now, years later, I find that programming has a similar
pattern: there is code that one writes for an audience (and that
thus is more maintainable) and there is code that one writes
that may show great technical skill - but that is more ...
challenging to enjoy.
Interesting - I would say it's the inverse. The complex, challenging, and spectacular code that gets blasted out is for the audience (user/customer) - but the most beautiful, simple, and maintainable code can only be written by those with the greatest skill, and are mostly appreciated by other developers of likewise experience.
In a way, it's a bit like juggling - that non-flash, simple routine, which concisely and clearly expresses intent, with little room for error, may not look impressive - but other developers will recognize the raw skill that was required to create it.
I think the benefit of less balls is that one can actually follow the patterns whilst with more balls/clubs/objects it's all a bit of a blur and one is respecting the skill but not really getting much out of the visual appearance. Like listening to music written/performed for the listener versus written/performed as a technical demonstration of the skill of the musician.
As a hobbyist juggler, his performance is really fun to watch on two levels. At its simplest, it's just a beautiful, flowing routine. It's really cool seeing one pattern become the next and the abrupt transitions between some are almost giggle-inducingly delightful.
At the same time, I can watch it with a juggler's eye and go, Rubenstein's Revenge, Windmill, Take-outs, Columns, The Machine, ....
It's exciting seeing a performance that is magical in total but that contains a bunch of pieces I can recognize and do myself.
As a fellow juggler (well, former, I don't really juggle much these days) I agree.
I find Gatto amazing in the same way other world record breakers are amazing, but apart from going "wow" it didn't feel inspiring to me as a juggler.
OTOH, there are world-class jugglers who go in different directions and do feel inspiring. I remember when I was starting out, this group with Jay Gilligan, Ville Walo and some other Finnish guy I forgot the name of had a VHS you could order over the 'net which was just unlike anything we'd seen. They were good technically, e.g. no problem with 5 clubs, but they also kept inventing new tricks and new ways of using objects instead of just going for more objects. I can't find any clips from that video[1], but there's some newer stuff from Jay and Ville on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w-WsyPeLEghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQJ4Q0SdJDo
[1] which started out with them pouring a bunch of meat and such into a jar and slurping it down, probably a joke at the large percentage of vegetarians at juggling conventions
Also a fellow juggler, but I have always felt the opposite, actually. (And have frequently felt like I'm in a minority.)
I could watch technicians practicing 8 balls, 10 rings, crazy site swaps, endless 5 club back crosses, etc. in a gym for hours. I have certainly enjoyed and appreciated the Jay Gilligan and Michael Moschen's of the world, but the overwhelming majority of "artsy" juggling just doesn't work, at least for me. For every Gilligan/Moschen/etc routine that I've seen that I've thought was well done, I feel like I've seen 4-5 that just fall totally flat for me.
At the other end of the spectrum, the "entertainer" jugglers that are aiming for a non-juggling audience I find almost impossible to watch. They are technically uninteresting, and I just can't get into the endless stream of lame jokes and winking at the crowd. Just awful. I would actually much prefer to watch Gatto practice than do one of his Vegas performances. The performances are impressive technically, but I find absolutely nothing about the presentation entertaining.
I think the reason that I feel this way is that I've always enjoyed the process of juggling (figuring how to do something, figuring out techniques for how to break down a trick into pieces, mastering each piece, etc) more than the end result (a polished, performable trick).
Back when I was juggling a lot, once I felt like I mastered a trick, it didn't really hold much interest for me anymore. When actually juggling, I would much rather spend my time trying to eke out a few more catches of 7 than toss 5 around more or less indefinitely.
But like I said, I've often felt like my preferences here are not all that common.
Apropos, from the Vova article: "These kids are changing the face of juggling, evolving a culture whose values — speed, numbers, athleticism, technique — are distinct from the traditional juggling values of balance, expression and showmanship."
I would say the Walo/Gilligan stuff is a third kind, where creativity the main value.
And yet, to be honest, while I appreciate the talent and skill required to do the kinds of numbers and moves Gatto does, and even though I understand the difficulty of pulling off, e.g., 7 clubs or 7-ball 5-up 360s or 6-club backcrosses — I find this type of juggling fairly boring to watch. No matter how much showmanship you put into it, every performing juggler eventually realizes that technical skill means very little and audiences get bored after about 3 minutes. Most good jugglers with long shows do comedy and variety routines. Gatto clearly didn't want to go down that road. I respect that.
My favorite juggler to watch is Falco Scheffler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CmnaICnMiw — no high numbers here, just 3 and 4 balls. And way more fun to watch than endless runs of 5 club backcrosses.