On the Modality of Spinning

However, siteswap does not describe the trajectory of movement, spatial configuration, or physical characteristics of performance. It therefore functions as a rhythmic scheme stripped of spatial specificity and kinetic detail.

This assumption proves effective when describing traditional forms of juggling with rigid props, where the primary movement reduces to a throw followed by a catch.

When this system is transferred to props with continuous dynamics, such as poi, fundamental discrepancies arise. The principal one is that object dwell time, which varies substantially depending on technique, is not represented in the notation, despite its critical role in shaping rhythm and movement structure.

With poi, the situation differs: holding and transferring the prop are not discrete events but a continuous bodily action involving impulse transfer, sustaining rotation, and plane control. The emphasis shifts from the moment of release to the phase of sustaining movement, which traditional notation omits entirely.

This causes siteswap to lose descriptive precision, remaining merely a scheme of events detached from physical context.

Pendulum and backward no-beat diverge in hold character, torque, plane, and the work of the body.

This becomes even clearer with complex patterns such as 5223. In siteswap this is an alternation of high, holding, and medium throws. In poi the same sequence may be interpreted as movement where «2» is an active rotation phase before a plane change and «5» is an intensified acceleration.

The notation continues to describe rhythmic structure but provides no information about performance form. It records when the next interaction should occur, but not what happens between interactions or by what means.

Terminology borrowed from classical juggling is also problematic. The notion of a «cascade» is applied by analogy yet has no direct equivalent in poi.

This problem intensifies in group work or when synchronising performers who use different types of props.

Without specifying performance parameters (hold method, rotation direction, plane, character of acceleration), a semantic divergence arises despite formal notational agreement.

All of the above allows us to conclude that siteswap, while an effective abstraction, is not a universal system for describing movement. Its applicability to flexible and torque-based systems requires rethinking: either toward extended models that account for additional parameters, or toward a conscious limitation of its domain of use.

Siteswap is thus less a language of description than a tool of ordering. It tells the performer when the next act of interaction with an object should occur, but leaves open the question of how that act is realised. This makes it valuable as a rhythmic grid, yet limited as a model of movement, especially in disciplines where the boundary between throw and spin is blurred.

Siteswap assumes the middle of a pattern; a complete hold of three objects on two hands needs multiplex writing. Holding Topology counts who is retained now. At the grain “poi as a unit at the handle,” spinning stays κ, a thrown head enters α, a run with some heads airborne is ακ. Varpanen’s toss-and-spin state graphs write the path of hands and tethers beside the siteswap. Poi as a Sport-Juggling Prop takes repeated throw and dwell for comparison and reads cascade as rhythm.