All Comments for this Record Category

• response to previous attempt

  Peter Craig

  Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:53:37 GMT

  Yeah, again as I say at first I thought it was borderline from when I tried, but as long as the bounces don't get much lower it's still extremely challenging. You do get into a rhythm and if you can keep it steady it will go on for ages as you've shown but one small slip and it's so hard to get back... great effort, impressive.

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Brian Pankey

  Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:47:10 GMT

  I feel this is similiar to the rubik's cube record. Once you can get control of the bounces you can go along way!

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Brian Pankey

  Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:35:52 GMT

  Hello Peter. the lower bounces were unintentional at first. I just got into the rhythm & the ball was bouncing on it's own. I wasn't trying to cheat or anything like that. You still have to have complete control of the coffee mug & the ball still has to land perfectly in the center of the mug.

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Peter Craig

  Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:14:06 GMT

  OK... I take that back. As long as the bounces are at least 4+ inches (8-10cm) it should be OK, you can get too many if it's any lower. Any other method comes down to skill and a good mug, if you can get past 100 hats off to you, good job :)

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Peter Craig

  Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:56:06 GMT

  I approved this record, and although there is no criteria on height I think this is starting to steer away from the original attempts as the bounces are much lower which eliminates the main challenge of judging the dip in the mug base. With lower bounces it could pretty much go on forever, but if that's the way you want to play, I'll give it a go...

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Brian Pankey

  Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:38:05 GMT

  Thanks Peter I counted more than 55 also but after I reviewed it I also got 55. So whoever verified this Rob, Dan, Marc, or Corey they were right & I was wrong.

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Peter Craig

  Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:23:01 GMT

  hmmm.... I counted 61 not 55

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Peter Craig

  Sat, 05 Jun 2010 06:07:33 GMT

  Wow.... this is so much harder than it looks... 46 grrr so close... for now I am defeated - hats off to you!

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt

  Peter Craig

  Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:21:59 GMT

  Good one Brian... I'm coming for you on this one - watch out :)

  LIKE (1) · REPLY