Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

Rich93 said:
Dr. Dave, for what it is worth, I think you have the patience and disposition of a saint. You are so polite in your replies it's almost as if you were a 3C billiard player. :)

I'd participate in this debate but I'm simply not brave enough. The depth of feeling out there on aiming systems is pretty surprising to me and I just wish to avoid it. But I appreciate those who are brave enough to swim in those rapids.

Thanks for all you have done for the "science".
Click to expand...
Thank you for the nice remarks. I can't wait to share the bolded sentence with my wife (we just got married recently). She will get a big kick out of that. As she can attest, I'm not always as patient as I might seem online.

Thanks again,
Dave
 
Scott Lee said:
Mike...too bad you didn't get certified as spf...then you'd understand SAM. While a 27 degree and 33 degree are different, they are both SAM 3 shots...which is CTE aiming. If you knew about SAM, you'd know that already. Clearly you don't, and would have to be SHOWN, since you apparently can't grasp the concept on the computer [...]
Click to expand...

Scott -

As you know, I prepared two videos solely on the ins and outs of the S.A.M #3 shot.

SAM #3 part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zysbWeI2_ZE

SAM #3 part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vRi3Jih1Lg

This was my sincere effort to communicate the most important aspects of this critical shot.

We should be working together.

I am confident there are things you could teach me, and I'm also confident there are things I could teach you. And working together we and the students we teach are all better off.

I suggest we move forward positively.

Agreed?
 
Mike:
I understand SAM just fine Scott.
Click to expand...
Me:
Many of us do, but Scott won't sell any lessons by admitting that.
Click to expand...
This was a cheap shot by me and I apologize to you for it, Scott. I still agree with Mike that no part of an aiming system should require hands-on instruction, but I also know from personal experience that you add lots of value when you get together with a student.

Anyone would profit from learning SAM or anything else directly from Scott.

(Ewww, I feel all... polite.)

pj
chgo
 
The truth is where we find it.

I have been reading these discussions for some time and think that there is truth in both sides of the discussion. Both sides have good intentions and are trying to communicate something that is a basis that can be used by players to improve their play.

I suspect that aiming systems give people a reference point from which to think about the shot. Some players may or may not be aware of the idea that for some shots their subconscious makes adjustments.

On the one side aiming systems provide a zone of comfort for the player because they work in some (many) situations. This in turn leads to confidence when shooting and the player, over time, learns to compensate as needed.

On the other side it can be demonstrated that some aspects of these systems can not work as described. Proponents of the system seem to indicate that these systems take several weeks (?) to learn. However, the concepts are basically straightforward and could be briefly described and learned in a few hours. Weeks of training are required because the systems involve the development of ?feel? though the user may not be aware of this aspect and therefore does not have to trust their natural sighting ability which is being developed within the system. For the present they have a system that can be relied upon.

In a sense, a player could be taught any of several systems and they all would work equally well if the player is willing to trust the system. Spider seems to be a good example of this.

The conclusion is that one may seek the limits of the aiming system to learn what is useful for some particular shots from a physical basis and this may contribute to the development of a new, more advanced, system.

However, finding the faults with a system that does work for some people is antithetical to the progress we all seek. There is no need to preach to either choir. No one has ever been converted in this way. What needs to be sought is an exact description of the system by the primary theorist and then studies on the theoretical limits of the system. The results could be a new system that might have some appeal.

No matter what system is developed, I suspect that we all know it too will have limits. Pointing out limits to those who are proponents of the system is inherently antagonistic. They already know their system and have consciously (or not) made adaptations at the system?s limits.

My point is that little is to be gained by pointing out the limits of a system to those who are proponents. The discussion is better held among those who are interested in such things. When proponents take offense, as Ron V seems to have been offended, the answer provided by Dave is sufficient to explain that no one particular system is or was under attack. And of course it is necessary to tread lightly among those who believe in any of several systems. Strongly held beliefs have started more than one war.
 
mikepage said:
cbi --


We want to look under the hood rather than get a ride across town.
Click to expand...

Here lies the problem. Many people here want to talk smack about these systems yet don't want to give them a fair shot.

The first time riding a bike you don't just look and then say it wont work! You get on and work on it. It's not until you work with it for a while that you can then determine if it's for you or not.

All the negative people here want to say these systems don't work because they can't perform the shots after reading how to shoot them. That is STUPID.

Reading how to do something doesn't always lead to success. Try cooking anything out of a cookbook. How often does it work out? However if you work with someone who knows how to cook that dish can oversee your mistakes that you're making. Mistakes that you would never know about unless someone shows you.

This is why you really need to have hands on instruction.
 
dr_dave said:
I don't know what you mean here. I have read this entire thread up to this point ... every word! Why do you think this is impossible, and why would you accuse me of lying? Or were you implying something else?

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Must everything be an attack to you? You prove my point. If you actually READ what I wrote, you would see that I made a distinction between reading vs. skimming. You'd also see the tongue-in-cheek in that entire post. But, you wanted to see some kind of false attack in it. And you somehow considered it personal. That really proves you weren't reading.

All threads on this topic flow the same way.

Fred
 
mikepage said:
Dave -- I really really want useful discussion.

I would be much obliged if you would read my post 121 and offer me as much advice as possible of how I might have communicated my thoughts better to encourage useful interaction.

I am at a loss. i really don't want to alienate anybody who might want to contribute positively to our common understanding.

Sometimes I get frustrated, occasionally I feel as though someone is condescending to me unfairly, and every now and then my communication might have a sprinkling of Tabasco sauce on it. But that's not very often, and I don't see myself as thin skinned. If you or others think I am, please let me know.
Click to expand...


Mike,

I've highlighted exactly why I've chosen not to engage these technical discussions about aiming with pivot systems. Feel, IMHO, is also a part of them. For instance, if the aim line is correct after pivoting for a particular shot, and one's stroke is a bit too strong, there will usually be more throw on the object ball, and the accuracy of the system will be called into question. Shoot really hard and another adjustment will be called for. Those kind of things will render putting a lot of this down on paper to one continual migraine. It really is easier to show some of these things on the table, so variations in a straight stroke and where the contact is made on the vertical axis can be seen to produce different results and track lines for the object ball.

I appreciate your willingness and courage to put yourself out there to be flayed by those who choose to so.

Flex
 
Patrick Johnson said:
??

It's clearly not impossible to have read this whole thread - it's no longer than a short story. I've read all but little bits of it.
Click to expand...
Sure it's impossible. First, it's forum nature to never read the entire thread. The thread is too long, people get long winded, go off tangents. We're humans; once the post gets too stupid, you, me, mikepage, and yes, Dr. Dave aren't going to sit there and attempt any absorption when the post gets dumb. And glazing the eyes over words isn't reading. That's skimming.

And more importantly, on several pages, there are several links to sites, videos, documents, and articles. If you actually follow each of those links and then read them not only would you forget what universe you're in, but you'd kick yourself for even getting that far.

Nobody reads the entire thread. Why would anyone actually try to defend that they do? Read most? Sure. Try to skim over everything? Absolutely. But read all? Never. But people say it. And I was simply zinging the person who said it or would be saying it. It wasn't specific to anyone. For me to actually have to explain to anyone that they didn't read everything is pretty stupid in itself.

Fred <~~~ stupid as they come
 
Dr. Joe,

Excellent post! I hope everybody does "read" this one.

Thanks,
Dave

JoeW said:
I have been reading these discussions for some time and think that there is truth in both sides of the discussion. Both sides have good intentions and are trying to communicate something that is a basis that can be used by players to improve their play.

I suspect that aiming systems give people a reference point from which to think about the shot. Some players may or may not be aware of the idea that for some shots their subconscious makes adjustments.

On the one side aiming systems provide a zone of comfort for the player because they work in some (many) situations. This in turn leads to confidence when shooting and the player, over time, learns to compensate as needed.

On the other side it can be demonstrated that some aspects of these systems can not work as described. Proponents of the system seem to indicate that these systems take several weeks (?) to learn. However, the concepts are basically straightforward and could be briefly described and learned in a few hours. Weeks of training are required because the systems involve the development of ?feel? though the user may not be aware of this aspect and therefore does not have to trust their natural sighting ability which is being developed within the system. For the present they have a system that can be relied upon.

In a sense, a player could be taught any of several systems and they all would work equally well if the player is willing to trust the system. Spider seems to be a good example of this.

The conclusion is that one may seek the limits of the aiming system to learn what is useful for some particular shots from a physical basis and this may contribute to the development of a new, more advanced, system.

However, finding the faults with a system that does work for some people is antithetical to the progress we all seek. There is no need to preach to either choir. No one has ever been converted in this way. What needs to be sought is an exact description of the system by the primary theorist and then studies on the theoretical limits of the system. The results could be a new system that might have some appeal.

No matter what system is developed, I suspect that we all know it too will have limits. Pointing out limits to those who are proponents of the system is inherently antagonistic. They already know their system and have consciously (or not) made adaptations at the system?s limits.

My point is that little is to be gained by pointing out the limits of a system to those who are proponents. The discussion is better held among those who are interested in such things. When proponents take offense, as Ron V seems to have been offended, the answer provided by Dave is sufficient to explain that no one particular system is or was under attack. And of course it is necessary to tread lightly among those who believe in any of several systems. Strongly held beliefs have started more than one war.
Click to expand...
 
Cornerman said:
Must everything be an attack to you? You prove my point. If you actually READ what I wrote, you would see that I made a distinction between reading vs. skimming. You'd also see the tongue-in-cheek in that entire post. But, you wanted to see some kind of false attack in it. And you somehow considered it personal. That really proves you weren't reading.
Click to expand...
Fred,

Honestly, I don't think it is worth it to discuss what you meant by "reading," and I am sorry if I seemed defensive. I'm also sorry if I misinterpreted the tone or intent of your original message. I hope we can get back to meaningful discussion again now.

Thanks,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Fred,

Honestly, I don't think it is worth it to discuss what you meant by "reading," and I am sorry if I seemed defensive. I'm also sorry if I misinterpreted the tone or intent of your original message. I hope we can get back to meaningful discussion again now.

Thanks,
Dave
Click to expand...
Well, sure, not only can we go back to the discussion, but we can also discuss the meaning of 'reading.' You just posted praise to JoeW on his post, and hope that everyone "reads it." I have to ask: did you read it???

His post not only said the same thing that JoeyA and I wrote in this same thread (and others. Sorry, I didn't read everything. I skimmed), but it points out the very problem that some of us have with, say, your articles that may imply the attempt to disprove these systems as well as many of your posts on these aiming systems of the same language. Surely, you "read" that from Joe's post.

And even though JoeW says that you've already said that no one particular system is or was under attack, it is still a general belief and understanding that your writings do indeed mean to attempt to disprove these systems in general. So, please, read Joe's post again. For all of our sakes. But, remember that his statements aren't new. Surely you've read them before.

Fred
 
Last edited:
mikepage said:
Dave -- I really really want useful discussion.

I would be much obliged if you would read my post 121 and offer me as much advice as possible of how I might have communicated my thoughts better to encourage useful interaction.

I am at a loss. i really don't want to alienate anybody who might want to contribute positively to our common understanding.

Sometimes I get frustrated, occasionally I feel as though someone is condescending to me unfairly, and every now and then my communication might have a sprinkling of Tabasco sauce on it. But that's not very often, and I don't see myself as thin skinned. If you or others think I am, please let me know.
Click to expand...
Mike,
There's hardly a more balanced and fair poster on this forum than yourself.

Regarding niceness, it's quite absurd how Rov V is getting a free pass and those of us who question / investigate unexplained aspects of these systems are constantly labeled antagonists.

A few posts ago Spidey mentioned that the pivoting method was detailed. My eyes opened up, because for the first time it seemed like a proponent actually had some insight into how they actually pivot. This is the holy grail we've been begging the users to tell us about.

As a good investigator PJ was quick to say, "let's hear it". To call this an attempt to antagonize, and to not respond is intellectually dishonest and/or inept. If it was a slip of the keyboard tongue it should have been stated as such. If someone here can describe their methodolgy of pivoting they ought to do so. It's obvious they don't know what they're doing in a way they can explain it in a technically correct way.

Here are some very antagonistic statements that to me are almost certainly true:

Point 1: A bunch of people swear by this system and do not know where they are pivoting from to make different length shots of differing cut angles.

Point 2: The only information these users have regarding the pivot is that it's a hip pivot and the bridge hand doesn't move.

Point 3: None of them actually pivot the cue from the hip position. All of them move their actual bridge point. Their pivot points range from 10+ inches behind the bridge to a few inches in front of the bridge.

Conclusion: They are all feeling the angle and pivoting to it. They are not actually using a system as such other than to use it as a visual and alignment reference. These are not actual systems, they are reference guides. It is likely that they are very useful reference guides.

There will always be arguments while there are system users that think there is some other magic going on.

FWIW, I am a keen user of the CTE reference guide nowadays.

Colin
 
Last edited:
Cornerman said:
Sure it's impossible. First, it's forum nature to never read the entire thread. The thread is too long, people get long winded, go off tangents.
Fred <~~~ stupid as they come
Click to expand...
Maybe that's a measure of one's intellectual laziness. I almost always read every word of every thread I post on. Sometimes it is painful, but that is how I get to know the thinking of those involved in the discussion.

Colin
 
RonV said:
Colin, The golfer went to the driving range to practice his PIVOT...
Click to expand...
Are you trying to cryptically antagonize me Ron?

By the way, where is your apology to Dave for the many errors in your abusive first post? You ought to be banned for not apologizing for that post in my opinion.

I feel sorry for those who think you are some fountain of knowledge. You have not put together 3 cognizant words in your entire contribution to this forum. You refuse to answer questions because you know you don't know the answers. You're an artist of bovine excrement.

If your original post was directed at yourself it would have been almost entirely accurate. What ironies ignorance unfolds.

Colin
 
Where the effective pivot is.

RonV said:
Colin,

A PIVOT IS TO TURN ON AN EXACT SPOT..

SO WHERE IS MY PIVOT BRAINIAC
Click to expand...
Ron,
Your pivot varies markedly for various distances between CB and OB and for different cut angles.

The graph below demonstrates the nature of this variation. Note that the actual numbers in the graph have not been calculated accurately. The graph is intended to show the nature of the variation only.

Colin
 

Attachments

  • 90 90 sample graph not accurate.GIF
    90 90 sample graph not accurate.GIF
    5.5 KB · Views: 237
SpiderWebComm said:
Mike,

Pivoting must be shown. There's a big misconception on here that all pivots are created equal. I can bridge from the same position and pivot to different CB centers. I'm brainstorming on how to explain this in a post, but wont until I know for sure. Pivoting must be shown.

Dave
Click to expand...


the misconception stems from everyone wanting a " TOP DOWN" view of a shot.. and trying to project the lines from that view... this is where the math guys are getting lost.... the perception of a SAM 3 from the shooting position might not be visible from a top down shot...

what you see when YOU are shooting and what someone else sees watching you shoot are two very different things,..........

all aiming systems. that work look exactly the same from a TOP DOWN view..

there is only one correct line and it leads to the center of the ghostball


an "Aiming System" teaches you where you need to look while down on a shot... YOUR VIEW... not your view watching me shoot... your view while YOU shoot..

that's where the cheese binds..

and where I see the biggest argument from both camps...

pivot systems force you to find 2 lines.... while they may work .. the pivot is just a way to transition from a top down view to a shooting position view.

sam is the shooting position view from the start.. find one line.. align to it and shoot....

it works..

and I don't care why it works...


simplify...
 
Pros of Point-to-Point Aiming Systems

Before Ron jumped in to stir me up I was preparing this post.

As there seems to be a common theme that us knuckleheaded critics are anti-90/90, CTE etc type systems, I wanted to make a post listing what I perceive to be the strongest advantages of these systems.

I think these advantages are the main reason players often find great success aiming and shooting this way.

1. Sighting point to point helps one to percieve an exact line and to take in the positions of the two balls relative to this line. In other words, they use a repeatable fixed method to visualize the ball positions.

2. These systems put you either right on line to begin with or in the ball park when used for appropriate shots.

3. In the pivot phase they move from this fixed line to another visual line that they perceive through the center of the CB. This finding of an aim line forces the mind to be decisive and exact. I believe forcing this decisiveness trains the mind not to wander and to make better decisions than just feeling around back and forth hoping to feel a ghost ball or contact point angle.

4. I suspect this one is the most powerful factor in these aiming methods. They force a player to commit to a pot line and then strike the cue dead straight through that line, rather than to swoop sideways on the shot as almost all beginners do. Because they focus hard on their pre-stroke alignment, they trust this line and stroke straight. If they do miss certain shots they will soon compensate with their aim until they learn to see the correct line.

The normal player very often aims thick on their cut angles and swoops a little to make the cuts. When they try to bring speed or english into those shots they meet with many difficulties. So using any system that forces a player to adopt strict and accurate pre-alignment, followed by a straight stroke, should meet with considerable success and consistancy after intensive practice.

5. Because players learn to trust their pre-alignment they begin to be able to relax during the actual stroke. This takes tension out of their arms and body and they can begin to execute with better speed and a more satisfactory feeling during execution. This may explain the feeling that they feel like they just pivot, bang and the ball goes in.

This is quite different to the normal play experience where there is a tendency to ride the ball into the hole. This occurs when players don't trust their alignment and tend to swoop a little to ride the cue ball to the correct point. This method of playing tends to make one have to work physically and mentally during the stroke. When pre-aligned well, the stroke is simply a matter of swinging the cue.

The only thing I don't agree with regarding these systems is that the systems find the aim line. I think it is the players that align themselves (via slight intuitive adjustments) to the correct aim line when need be. It will take them a little while to develop this ability for a wide range of shots.

Colin
 
Last edited:
Screw you all!

Dammit!!! My head is spinning so much that for the last two days I can't play at all. Thinking about SAM DAM CTE etc.... and whether there is any difference in cues or not.

Pat: Please post a CueTable diagram of how you measure spin. Anyone else please post your diagrams of how you want deflection/squirt measured, different shots, aiming systems, whatever.

I tried to do a video today and got lost trying to look up everyone's various tests.

So if you have THE TEST then please post it using Cue Table and I will recreate on the pool table in our office.

I was using the new Cuesight Training ball today that I designed (SHAMELESS PLUG) and found something very interesting. I could get massive draw with just one full tip's worth of low english. I also did it two ways - one by aiming low and the cue tip was hitting the cue ball at one tip below center - and two by aiming at the center and delivering lower - in effect BHE when applying draw.

I also found out that I really suck these days by not hitting the cueball where I think I am hitting it. It took me about 10 minutes to warm up enough and get loose where I was able to consciously hit the ball in the right spot every time.

Lastly we did a little experiment where I had a beginner - as in doesn't even know how to stroke a cue - try one of Hal's aiming systems. He was able to pocket the ball about 30% of the time using Hal's system, got close about 70% of the time. But when we moved the balls to different locations he was missing it by a wide margin 100% of the time. Without any aiming system he was missing all the shots 100% of the time and the object ball was all over the place.

So obviously Hal's system works to get him in the ball park BUT not enough to have him making the ball or getting close with different shot setups. Me on the other hand I was close or successful on all ball positions. And I tested this out with various systems.

BUT I think I am onto something as to WHY the systems work and also why they don't when they don't.

Til next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top