Possible Proof that Pivot Systems Need Adjustments
- Thread starter CueAndMe
- Start date
Jim, you've been involved in threads where I've posted exactly how Hal taught it to me. I don't want to sift through hundreds of posts to find them though, and I am very willing to repeat myself here.
Hal's system as taught to me:
Approach the shot by lining up your eyes directly behind the line that connects the center of the cueball and the outer edge of the object ball. He actually told me just a hair outside of the edge.
Once your center-to-edge sighting is aligned, place the bridge and cue to one side of center cueball. For thinner cuts you place it on the inside of the shot. For thicker shots you place it on the outside of the shot. He told me it didn't matter where.
Now pivot the cue back to center cueball and shoot. If you miss, it's your fault. I kept missing. It must have been my fault.
Hal's system as taught to me:
Approach the shot by lining up your eyes directly behind the line that connects the center of the cueball and the outer edge of the object ball. He actually told me just a hair outside of the edge.
Once your center-to-edge sighting is aligned, place the bridge and cue to one side of center cueball. For thinner cuts you place it on the inside of the shot. For thicker shots you place it on the outside of the shot. He told me it didn't matter where.
Now pivot the cue back to center cueball and shoot. If you miss, it's your fault. I kept missing. It must have been my fault.
bluepepper said:
OK. And I'm glad to hear that you recognize I'm overlooking his constant personal attacks and not reacting in kind. But don't blame me if everybody gets stupid from reading his posts.
pj
chgo
bluepepper said:
LOL it is your fault, that's the ironic thing. But I'm going to help you....
Three things are probably wrong (I have no idea how you play, by the way):
1) You're not perceiving that line correctly. You THINK you're seeing center-to-edge and you're not. I struggled with this when I first started. My guess is many people don't perceive that line correctly and they immediately quit. Setup a wide range of cut angles at different distances to the CB. Get your wife/girlfriend/son/daughter to help you by holding a piece of string at the edge of the OB (equator) and pull it taut to the CB center. I did this for a week or so. Really helped me get past the initial chasm.... perception/sighting.
2) Use Joe Tucker's 3rd eye trainer. ENSURE you know where CB center is. I had a breakdown a few months ago and couldn't figure out what happened to my ball pocketing. I put on the 3rd eye and I was 1/4 tip off of center. No kidding. If you're not pivoting to center, you risk missing the ball.
3) Body pivot instead of using back-hand english. From what I've seen with people, they get slight lateral movement during a pivot and they don't stroke straight post-pivoting. Pivot around your hip (see my banking video, I do a quick demo of how this is done). This will give you the same result, but eliminate pivot variation and unnecessary movement.
Hope this helps,
Dave
I'm not interested in being converted to an aiming religion. If you have something practical to teach about aiming in pool, then it can be explained in simple English. If it can't be explained in simple English, then it's not practical enough to interest me. Pool isn't quantum mechanics - the balls are too big.
pj
chgo
SpiderWebComm said:
So you agree that how far to the side the cue is shifted before pivoting doesn't matter?
pj
chgo
Dave, I can hit targets. If I set up a long half ball hit over again, I'd make that shot over and over again. My stroke is pretty good. My alignment is good enough to hit the edge of a ball or any target downtable consistently.
I run 30s often in straight pool on tight pockets. Occasionally I'll run in the 40s. My high run is around 60. I can line up a shot. Sometimes I have rough days, but I'm not failing because I can't hold a cue or I can't find center cueball.
Maybe I'm not used to pivoting and that accounts for something, but I think it's pretty easy to pivot with a steady bridge hand. I've also pivoted with my hips as you and RonV have suggested.
I hate to come off as anti-pivot, because that's really not what I'm trying to do here, because I know it works. I just don't think it works on its own.
I run 30s often in straight pool on tight pockets. Occasionally I'll run in the 40s. My high run is around 60. I can line up a shot. Sometimes I have rough days, but I'm not failing because I can't hold a cue or I can't find center cueball.
Maybe I'm not used to pivoting and that accounts for something, but I think it's pretty easy to pivot with a steady bridge hand. I've also pivoted with my hips as you and RonV have suggested.
I hate to come off as anti-pivot, because that's really not what I'm trying to do here, because I know it works. I just don't think it works on its own.
And let me just say that I would absolutely love to be proven wrong and have a system that takes the guesswork out of pool. I would kiss the feet of the person who gave me that. That's why I drove to see Hal. I desperately wanted something that would solve this last piece of the puzzle for me.
For me it is so not about being correct. It's about learning new things. If this worked for me, I would have been praising it to death here and Hal along with it.
For me it is so not about being correct. It's about learning new things. If this worked for me, I would have been praising it to death here and Hal along with it.
Patrick Johnson said:
If knew as little as you about pocketing balls and someone offered to guarantee 1/2 of my trip if the info was bad, I'd be on priceline.com immediately.
What are you afraid of? Don't wanna post a video of you playing? I wish I you were with me when I was with Stevie or Francisco so you could tell them they're using an aiming religion. After they'd get done laughing in your face and begging for oxygen, they'd ask you how you aimed....and if you had the heart to answer, they'd laugh again.
There you have it.... I offered to pay 1/2 PJ's airfare based on the strength of my information and the non-houligan's leader chicken-shitted himself.
I think many of these people really believe these systems work without adjustment, and the reason for that boils down to perception. They swear they are aiming without any adjustments. The "I saw it with my own eyes" syndrome makes them ignore all evidence, facts, and common sense. The reality is that they are making subconscious aiming adjustments, and this allows an unworkable system to work, but they will refuse to accept it based on their own conviction and perception.Patrick Johnson said:
It reminds me of a similar thing that can occue with pilots. Under certain circumstances a pilot can lose grasp of their orientation in the air. They may think they are right side up when in fact they are upside down for example, and every fiber of their being will swear that they are correct regardless of what the instrument panel says. They are trained to ALWAYS believe the instrument panel (the facts) over their own perception, no matter how strongly they disagree with it or feel that it is malfunctioning. Many a pilot has died because he thought he was right side up and pulling up and climbing, when in reality he was upside down and pulling his plane straight down into the ground because he just couldn't let go of what his own senses were telling him.
The people who believe these aiming systems work without subconscious adjustments are the same ones that would be flying their plane into the ground instead of trusting their cockpit instruments. They value their own perceptions over indisputable proof.
Dave,
for f sake. The man is not obligated to come nor does he have to answer in 15 minutes not to be branded a coward. Take it easy. This system may have merit. Most have something to offer (well all except the floating lights
)
This reminds my of the IPT. When I spoke up and said the man was a crook I was branded a nit and a fool. Anybody want some of that now? Their is just way too much passion in these HH threads.
Come to Vancouver (it's only 2880 Miles away). I'll play you Snooker (my rules, my local...my game) for say $100.00/game. Should you beat me I will double your money and I'll keep my points. I don't expect you to take me up on my offer nor will I call you a coward if you don't accept.
Nick "My Wife took my tin foil" B
for f sake. The man is not obligated to come nor does he have to answer in 15 minutes not to be branded a coward. Take it easy. This system may have merit. Most have something to offer (well all except the floating lights
)This reminds my of the IPT. When I spoke up and said the man was a crook I was branded a nit and a fool. Anybody want some of that now? Their is just way too much passion in these HH threads.
Come to Vancouver (it's only 2880 Miles away). I'll play you Snooker (my rules, my local...my game) for say $100.00/game. Should you beat me I will double your money and I'll keep my points. I don't expect you to take me up on my offer nor will I call you a coward if you don't accept.
Nick "My Wife took my tin foil" B
SpiderWebComm said:
Dave, Patrick has said that he doesn't deny pivoting working. He, like me, just wants to get to the bottom of why it works.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you and Bustamante pivot the way Hal or Ron teach.
You have developed your own pivot from the left. What it appears to do is sweep the many angles available until you recognize the right one for the shot at hand.
It's as though with every millimeter of the pivot/sweep you're saying, "no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no, YES that's it! Time to shoot."
I think anyone aiming by feel does this. They may do it in a standing position behind the cueball though. They move left or right until it just looks right. Then they get down to shoot. You're just doing it in a different way. Not too bad to be doing it like Bustamante.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you and Bustamante pivot the way Hal or Ron teach.
You have developed your own pivot from the left. What it appears to do is sweep the many angles available until you recognize the right one for the shot at hand.
It's as though with every millimeter of the pivot/sweep you're saying, "no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no, YES that's it! Time to shoot."
I think anyone aiming by feel does this. They may do it in a standing position behind the cueball though. They move left or right until it just looks right. Then they get down to shoot. You're just doing it in a different way. Not too bad to be doing it like Bustamante.
Patrick Johnson said:
You are TOO funny. First you say that you are not reacting in kind to personal attacks...and then you post one!
You post history is LADEN with personal attacks directed to me. You should not fib Patrick. If you keep it up, there will be NO pudding for desert.
(-:
You've really been giving me some major laugh-out-louds lately. Thanks!
Jim
bluepepper said:
If that is the limit of what you were taught...or what you absorbed, no wonder you can't pocket balls accurately.
There are GAPING holes in what you posted nor do I believe that you are accurately describing what you were told. Not that you are engaging in falsehoods necessarily...possibly you simply didn't grasp what you were being taught.
Regards,
Jim
bluepepper said:
Just to clarify a couple of things. I linked to these diagrams in another thread as I think they give some insights into how adjustments in bridge positioning can be made to alter the pot angle.
This system used aiming at the contact point as a reference. A similar one could be constructed using OB Edge as the reference.
This is not the same as the system or apparent variations (Stage 2, bridge and pivot - Stage 3 air pivot).
FWIW, I'm still in the dark concerning any detail of how either of these systems establish the final cue line through the center of the Cue Ball.
We've heard that the Pro One system is proprietary, and so the details of this system are not being discussed. But a lot of people have apparently learned the Houlian CTE system, yet no one seems able to explain the adjustment system it adapts.
Adjustment systems have been discussed before such as aligning 1/4 tip, or 1/2 tip (etc) off CB center parallel with CTE. These seem like method to expand the usability of the SAM system.
Different proponents of CTE even seem to have different takes on how it works.
Colin
First, let me correct you regarding your aviation analogy. Pilots rarely loose control due to being upside down and thinking they are right side up.
Gravity makes pilots QUITE well aware if they are upside down. The problem arises when they mishandle the process of righting the airplane at night or in the clouds.
In addition, pilots are NOT taught to "always believe the instrument panel" because some instruments can and do fail. The pilot must always CROSS CHECK the entire panel in an attempt to determine whether any particular instrument or group of instruments have failed and if so, which ones.
Having said that, I understand and agree with the essence of what you were trying to say. Your point is quite valid. However, it is one of those arguments that a good lawyer would never present in court because it can be used to justify either side of the debate.
While it is true that subconscious adjustments can make a flawed system seem to work, it is equally true that such adjustments can make a perfect system fail. Since, using your own argument, the adjustments are not consciously applied, neither side can prove their case!
Moreover, as I and others have stated, even if the "student" actually attempts to execute the system and no subconscious adjustments are made...intentionally or otherwise...it is true that the cue must be directed straight to the target and not pulled/pushed off line due to a faulty stroke.
No system can survive a poorly executed stroke so ANY testimony from a player who says a given system doesn't work can ONLY be evaluated if the listener/reader happens to know that the "student" has a strong, repeatable stroke.
THAT is one of the many reasons why debates like these are so useless.
Having said all that, it is just fundamentally SILLY for people to crticize a system that they do not fully understand! And there has been A LOT of that in these threads.
Spidey has offered to personally teach the system to Patrick who of course declined and dismissed the system as "religion" WHEN HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE BASICS OF THE SYSTEM!!!
I have read and enjoyed much of what you posted and I think you are a better man than that.
Frankly, given that Stan Shuffett who is widely known and accepted to be one of the best instructors in America endorses the system and has taught it to his own SON...who at age 14 can drill most of the posters on this forum...and CERTAINLY Patrick Johnson...I am ASTONISHED that so many of you dismiss it as bunk.
Call me a fool...call Spidey a liar for posting that Django told him he uses CTE EXCLUSIVELY...but don't call Stan Shuffett a fool.
Regards,
Jim
(as for my aviation comments: 1000 hours Total Time, Private, Instrument, Commercial and Multi-engine ratings. Former co-owner of Part 135 Charter, Air Ambulance company).
Gravity makes pilots QUITE well aware if they are upside down. The problem arises when they mishandle the process of righting the airplane at night or in the clouds.
In addition, pilots are NOT taught to "always believe the instrument panel" because some instruments can and do fail. The pilot must always CROSS CHECK the entire panel in an attempt to determine whether any particular instrument or group of instruments have failed and if so, which ones.
Having said that, I understand and agree with the essence of what you were trying to say. Your point is quite valid. However, it is one of those arguments that a good lawyer would never present in court because it can be used to justify either side of the debate.
While it is true that subconscious adjustments can make a flawed system seem to work, it is equally true that such adjustments can make a perfect system fail. Since, using your own argument, the adjustments are not consciously applied, neither side can prove their case!
Moreover, as I and others have stated, even if the "student" actually attempts to execute the system and no subconscious adjustments are made...intentionally or otherwise...it is true that the cue must be directed straight to the target and not pulled/pushed off line due to a faulty stroke.
No system can survive a poorly executed stroke so ANY testimony from a player who says a given system doesn't work can ONLY be evaluated if the listener/reader happens to know that the "student" has a strong, repeatable stroke.
THAT is one of the many reasons why debates like these are so useless.
Having said all that, it is just fundamentally SILLY for people to crticize a system that they do not fully understand! And there has been A LOT of that in these threads.
Spidey has offered to personally teach the system to Patrick who of course declined and dismissed the system as "religion" WHEN HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE BASICS OF THE SYSTEM!!!
I have read and enjoyed much of what you posted and I think you are a better man than that.
Frankly, given that Stan Shuffett who is widely known and accepted to be one of the best instructors in America endorses the system and has taught it to his own SON...who at age 14 can drill most of the posters on this forum...and CERTAINLY Patrick Johnson...I am ASTONISHED that so many of you dismiss it as bunk.
Call me a fool...call Spidey a liar for posting that Django told him he uses CTE EXCLUSIVELY...but don't call Stan Shuffett a fool.
Regards,
Jim
(as for my aviation comments: 1000 hours Total Time, Private, Instrument, Commercial and Multi-engine ratings. Former co-owner of Part 135 Charter, Air Ambulance company).
Poolplaya9 said:
Dave,
I have learned the pivot or "swivel" system from RonV and I must say, it does work, but after working with it I have to agree that bridge length DOES matter. And its the different between making and missing a ball. And its not a matter of stoke. Here is a simple graphic with 3 different pivot points. its a "90 to 90 - pivot to center" shot. So line shot up parallel 10% of object ball and 10% of cueball, pivot to center of cueball.
One back ball is the cue ball, the other is the object ball and the gray balls are the ghostballs.
the whole shot
pivot lengths and cue ball.
object ball and ghostballs.
object ball and ghostballs.
cueball and object ball are 27" away from each other
pivot 1=11"
pivot 2=15"
pivot 3=19"
shot 1 misses completely, shot 2 and 3 are only .13" from each other, but as you can see it will send the object ball on a different path and after 36" the two paths are 2.25" from each other.
All Im saying is, the system will work, but there are limits that you have to know and stay within. a 19" bridge is HUGE... but this is just an example of why the bridge location matters.
Sorry for the sloppy graphic.... trying to get the point across in as little time as possible.
I have learned the pivot or "swivel" system from RonV and I must say, it does work, but after working with it I have to agree that bridge length DOES matter. And its the different between making and missing a ball. And its not a matter of stoke. Here is a simple graphic with 3 different pivot points. its a "90 to 90 - pivot to center" shot. So line shot up parallel 10% of object ball and 10% of cueball, pivot to center of cueball.
One back ball is the cue ball, the other is the object ball and the gray balls are the ghostballs.
the whole shot
pivot lengths and cue ball.
object ball and ghostballs.
object ball and ghostballs.
cueball and object ball are 27" away from each other
pivot 1=11"
pivot 2=15"
pivot 3=19"
shot 1 misses completely, shot 2 and 3 are only .13" from each other, but as you can see it will send the object ball on a different path and after 36" the two paths are 2.25" from each other.
All Im saying is, the system will work, but there are limits that you have to know and stay within. a 19" bridge is HUGE... but this is just an example of why the bridge location matters.
Sorry for the sloppy graphic.... trying to get the point across in as little time as possible.