True Workings of Pivot-style Aiming

[paultex]

I guess a pivot could be considered a tweek but if its a consistent thing with every shot, then it could be considered part of a sequence combination to unlock a equation.

The ultimate in perception is a tweekless execution where everything is formulated from the stand up.

Stan said that to align yourself self up perfectly from the stand up for every shot is a "tough deal".

Yep, he's right but obviously it's doable but I don't think it's necessary because sequence does not equate to limitation.

Pure perception = perfect alignment awareness from the stand up.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

I guess a pivot could be considered a tweek but if its a consistent thing with every shot, then it could be considered part of a sequence combination to unlock a equation.

The ultimate in perception is a tweekless execution where everything is formulated from the stand up.

Stan said that to align yourself self up perfectly from the stand up for every shot is a "tough deal".

Yep, he's right but obviously it's doable but I don't think it's necessary because sequence does not equate to limitation.

Pure perception = perfect alignment awareness from the stand up.

Paultex.. The way I explain how I aim in post #20 is for clarity only. It's what do, but I know my pocket angle from my PSR.
When approaching the shot from behind I'll know the angle in front of the OB and then decide whether I'm pivoting or not.

.

 

[BC21]

Oh but you are. Here's what you said: "Concerning shishkabob, since the pivot originates from a line that goes from a ccb OFFSET to a specific reference on the OB, instead of from a line that is parallel to a ccb-to-ob-ref line, THE RESULTING CUTwill just be a few degrees THINNER."

A pivot by itself doesn't give you an overcut, what we were talking about is the INSIDE OFFSET pivoting back to CENTER which is the CORRECT VISUALS AND SETUP FOR AN OVERCUT.

YOU SAID ABOVE, "THE RESULTING CUT WILL JUST BE A FEW DEGREES THINNER".

THINNER=OVERCUT.

Yeah, the 1/2 tip inside pivot as used with Shiskabob does create a thinner shot angle than a standard 1/2 tip offset pivot from the inside. Compared to shooting straight at the OB ref point from CCB, any inside pivot using that ref point and then pivoting to CCB will create a thinner shot angle. It's not really an overcut. It's just a thinner shot than what the CCB-to-OB ref line creates.

 

[BC21]

Brian.. Not as difficult as you might think.. Line the cue center CB and pointed at center OB for alignment.
Pick out the contact point distance from the OB center (close as possible) and then parallel shift your cue.

The cue should point at the same spot ( opposite of contact point ) on both CB and OB to keep alignment.
The cue would aim through the CB, and aligned to a OB point the same distance but opposite OB center.

I'll always pivot the cue from the inside of the OB cut angle and will never pivot from outside my cut angle.
Pivoting from inside the cut angle, makes finding the OB contact point much easier to see at all distances.

Cue pivot points can change with ball distance. I find it easy to compensate. The cue may not reach CCB.

.

According to the image, if the OB is 50" from the CB wouldn't the cue pivot point need to be nearly 25" away from the CB to get it to work?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Yeah, the 1/2 tip inside pivot as used with Shiskabob does create a thinner shot angle than a standard 1/2 tip offset pivot from the inside. Compared to shooting straight at the OB ref point from CCB, any inside pivot using that ref point and then pivoting to CCB will create a thinner shot angle. It's not really an overcut. It's just a thinner shot than what the CCB-to-OB ref line creates.

AKA OVERCUT built into the visuals through an inside setup and pivoting back to center from the systematic way it's done. Ever so slight but still an overcut to be exact.

It provides a better and more consistent result. Your buddy has it right.

 

[BC21]

AKA OVERCUT built into the visuals through an inside setup and pivoting back to center from the systematic way it's done. Ever so slight but still an overcut to be exact.

It provides a better and more consistent result. Your buddy has it right.

It all depends on where the pocket is in relation to the OB's path toward the 90° tangent line that corresponds to whichever OB ref point you're using.

Each specific pivot for a particular CB-to-OB reference point creates a specific tangent line at a specific distance. Any ball shot using this specific pivot and ref point will be sent to the tangent line. Balls closer to the CB are sent to a spot on the tangent line closer to where the centerline between the balls ends. Balls that are closer to that max distance at the tangent line get sent toward infinity. But there's an area where many of the ball paths crisscross each other. If this happens to be near a pocket the balls drop into the pocket. The entire pocket gets used, some balls hitting thick, some center, and some thin.

Here's another image showing how the ball paths crisscross....

 

[paultex]

Paultex.. The way I explain how I aim in post #20 is for clarity only. It's what do, but I know my pocket angle from my PSR.
When approaching the shot from behind I'll know the angle in front of the OB and then decide whether I'm pivoting or not.

.

Yeah that's cool but I was just making a statement based off of the reality of the human relationship of addressing this funny business of sphere to sphere idealism collision'ism.

A pivot is a mechanical offset to alleviate the problem of eye tractor beam. There's always an offset of some sort and I don't see the problem with pivots as if it's something else all together. Its a viable solution with inherent problems just like any other offset in the sense that it has gaps or is extremely complicated and more involved.

So, I figure, take a piece of everything one can utilize to fill in the gaps. I personally pivot for the opening break in snooker. Something about that shot relationship from the rail gives me problems in perception, so, kick the right elbow out and produce a shaft angle to the right across my vision center and its a nice solve.

.......but, the stroke feels very alien and awkward. That's the price for a offset usually.

I agree with your method of angle checking as well. Perception is a funny thing and rather annoying to be honest. That's why some times id like to carve out my dominant eye with a butter knife. I'm serious.

Have a nice day y'all.

 

[paultex]

By the way, I meant some offsets are more complicated and involved than others. I found pivots quite comfortable 20 years ago but now I'm just stating to get the hang of it again because I've spent so much time squaring up my alignment. The pivot does not allow me to shoot at what I see visually because the shaft angle needs judgement but it's a quicker solve for short angle shots we all deal with, without me having to formulate extra steps in alignment sequence.

I like and use all kinds of offsets except for bridge shifting because I've found its not needed if one has a multitude of other offsets to achieve the necessary effects on both sides of the cueball.

I assume front hand English is basically "parallel" English I think.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It all depends on where the pocket is in relation to the OB's path toward the 90° tangent line that corresponds to whichever OB ref point you're using.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. The reference point to any and all aiming systems changes whether it's contact point aiming, fractions, equal and opposite, etc. What is the math and geometry going to do for anyone that tells them how much to pivot and what choice to make for the visual? In my case, with shishkabob, I pivot BOTH ways. Not just from inside to CCB, but from CCB to outside for English which also produces throw. The visuals might not be the same for an identical cut angle when using inside vs. outside so there goes the perfect geometric tangent lines into the garbage.

It would be nice if all you had to do was aim at center OB for everything from 0 - 90 degrees and they all could go in. But it doesn't work that way. Obviously additional reference points are needed to create more acute cut angles. Try doing your tangent lines and diagrams when aligning CCB to COB or to 1/4 and 1/2 with varying degrees of an outside pivot adding throw into the equation. GOOD LUCK!

However with an offset and a varied amount of pivot, considerably fewer reference points are required to make the different shot angles. 90/90 is a pivot system that has the tip of the cue on the right or left outer limit of the CB, not just 1/2 or 1 tip away. It doesn't cover ALL angles which is when something else has to be done. Get Ron Vitello's DVD and system to find out how. Unfortunately, he passed away. See if anyone is willing to sell it.

Pivoting isn't the first and most important part of the aiming system. VISUAL ALIGNMENT is which then sets the eyes, head, body and stance from the INSIDE to an ever changing CENTER, IN BETWEEN CENTER AND EDGE, and EDGE of the two balls in relation to the pocket. We went through this yesterday when I had you place a ball 6-8" from the side pocket and move 12" at a time along the long rail to a corner pocket to see how the center and edges are in a constant state of change. From a straight on view behind the OB to pocket THAT COB is the NEVER CHANGING point of CONTACT for Contact Point Aiming or GB.

And just remember, Shiskabob and CTE are NOT the same. Shiskabob is using the tip and ferrule of the cue and CTE does not. CTE Pro1 also uses no manual pivot.

Your past history indicates when you go into the "trying to prove something" mode with math, diagrams, and what you deem as logic which is totally illogical because you're operating from a position of minimal or incorrect knowledge and technique, you're main goal is to DISPROVE what is being used to execute a system. I hope this isn't your goal again. If there is no ulterior motive, please forgive my skepticism based on my wariness from the past.

You're dragging this back into territory that has nothing to do with YOUR FRACTIONAL AIMING SYSTEM.

You should probably address how to acquire visuals in a way that's easier and fool proof when a cut demands more than a 1/2 ball hit besides tons of practice, HAMB, and figure it out for yourself.

Does that make sense? It does to me.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So, I figure, take a piece of everything one can utilize to fill in the gaps. I personally pivot for the opening break in snooker. Something about that shot relationship from the rail gives me problems in perception, so, kick the right elbow out and produce a shaft angle to the right across my vision center and its a nice solve.

.......but, the stroke feels very alien and awkward. That's the price for a offset usually.

You do know your body came with something at no extra charge called a HIP, don't you?

If you HIP pivot, the arm and elbow is in the same position of a straight stroke without kicking it out and away to feel alien and awkward. No price to pay.

Damn boy, you gotta be taught everything. Even the obvious.

 

[BC21]

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. The reference point to any and all aiming systems changes whether it's contact point aiming, fractions, equal and opposite, etc.

It would be nice if all you had to do was aim at center OB for everything from 0 - 90 degrees and they all could go in. But it doesn't work that way. Obviously additional reference points are needed to create more acute cut angles. Try doing your tangent lines and diagrams when aligning CCB to COB or to 1/4 and 1/2 with varying degrees of an outside pivot adding throw into the equation. GOOD LUCK!

However with an offset and a varied amount of pivot, considerably fewer reference points are required to make the different shot angles. 90/90 is a pivot system that has the tip of the cue on the right or left outer limit of the CB, not just 1/2 or 1 tip away. It doesn't cover ALL angles which is when something else has to be done. Get Ron Vitello's DVD and system to find out how. Unfortunately, he passed away. See if anyone is willing to sell it.

Pivoting isn't the first and most important part of the aiming system. VISUAL ALIGNMENT is which then sets the eyes, head, body and stance from the INSIDE to an ever changing CENTER, IN BETWEEN CENTER AND EDGE, and EDGE of the two balls in relation to the pocket. We went through this yesterday when I had you place a ball 6-8" from the side pocket and move 12" at a time along the long rail to a corner pocket to see how the center and edges are in a constant state of change. From a straight on view behind the OB to pocket THAT COB is the NEVER CHANGING point of CONTACT for Contact Point Aiming or GB.

And just remember, Shiskabob and CTE are NOT the same. Shiskabob is using the tip and ferrule of the cue and CTE does not. CTE Pro1 also uses no manual pivot.

Your past history indicates when you go into the "trying to prove something" mode with math, diagrams, and what you deem as logic which is totally illogical because you're operating from a position of minimal or incorrect knowledge and technique, you're main goal is to DISPROVE what is being used to execute a system. I hope this isn't your goal again.

You're dragging this back into territory that has nothing to do with YOUR FRACTIONAL AIMING SYSTEM.

You should probably address how to acquire visuals in a way that's easier and fool proof when a cut demands more than a 1/2 ball hit besides tons of practice, HAMB, and figure it out for yourself.

Does that make sense? It does to me.

This is the aiming forum, an open forum for discussing aiming techniques. A few people use pivots and I thought this would be good information to explain exactly how pivot-style strokes work, exactly what determines where the OB goes on each shot when using an OB reference, any reference, and a pivot, any pivot -- inside or outside. There is nothing to prove. It's simply how it works. Any manual pivot player can benefit from this knowledge if they want. It's interesting and can be be very enlightening.

Concerning fractional aiming on thin cuts (thinner than 1/2 ball), it really doesn't take long to recognize a 3/8, a 1/4 or 1/8 aim from CCB, or anywhere in-between. Rote wise, it's probably less time-consuming than perfecting other aiming methods. Or better yet, other aiming methods could be incorporated on thinner cuts instead of using CCB fractional aiming. It's good to have more than one tool to use. One could use an inside pivot and OB edge ref. Or visualize where the edge of the CB would overlap the OB, etc... Regardless, thin cuts require repetitive practice, whether you're trying to work out the exact pivot vs ref point method or simply straight-aiming from CCB, it's going to require practice.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

This is the aiming forum, an open forum for discussing aiming techniques. A few people use pivots and I thought this would be good information to explain exactly how pivot-style strokes work, exactly what determines where the OB goes on each shot when using an OB reference, any reference, and a pivot, any pivot -- inside or outside. There is nothing to prove. It's simply how it works. Any manual pivot player can benefit from this knowledge if they want. It's interesting and can be be very enlightening.

There are those who are mathematically and geometrically inclined on this forum so I guess it does have it's appeal. The area of debate then becomes is it 100% correct and does your math and geometry match my math and geometry. "MY" isn't me. It's referring to other geometricians. All I care about is the ball going in the hole.

Concerning fractional aiming on thin cuts (thinner than 1/2 ball), it really doesn't take long to recognize a 3/8, a 1/4 or 1/8 aim from CCB, or anywhere in-between.

I originally read this incorrectly to read thicker than...on thinner cuts it DOES take longer especially for a beginner because they NEED reference points and overlaps. Even better players need something tangible.

Rote wise, it's probably less time-consuming than perfecting other aiming methods.

Maybe but not necessarily. It depends on the system. Joe Tucker's contact point aiming system with training balls and grid come very quickly.

It's matching the CB and OB with the actual impact of the two. The visuals are so finite and the stroke has to be dead pure on the money.

Or better yet, other aiming methods could be incorporated on thinner cuts instead of using CCB fractional aiming. It's good to have more than one tool to use.

Agreed. But why not use an aiming system that has all of it included from 0-90 degrees? Why aim with a flip and then convert to a flop?

One could use an inside pivot and OB edge ref. Or visualize where the edge of the CB would overlap the OB, etc... Regardless, thin cuts require repetitive practice,

True but thin cuts are considerably easier if there are fixed reference points on both or either the CB and OB. Not somewhere off into space.

whether you're trying to work out the exact pivot vs ref point method or simply straight-aiming from CCB, it's going to require practice.

Yes, but some require more practice than others and a need to "figure it out for yourself".

You stated this about your own aiming system when it goes beyond a very visual 1/2 ball alignment:

""And naturally any cut shot thinner than about a quarter ball hit would be SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE THERE'S NO GOOD REFERENCE TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE THE AIM LINE. Those shots require a lot of practice to develop consistency"
12-04-2017, 11:47 AM

That's a whole lotta bunch of angles and tangent lines for someone to have to figure out on their own.

Fill that void and it'll be better. How? It's YOUR system. Figure it out.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

According to the image, if the OB is 50" from the CB wouldn't the cue pivot point need to be nearly 25" away from the CB to get it to work?

If everything actually worked according to Hoyle.... but it doesn't... Like I said
"Cue pivot points can change with ball distance. I find it easy to compensate."

The same thing with CB squirt.. Cue ball deflection can change with speed. I
find it easy to compensate.. and with swerve, which is harder to compensate.

If your 1/2 tip CB offset is always used you must do some compensating also.
The game takes feel unless you just want to throw CB control out the window.

.

 

[BC21]

Yes, but some require more practice than others and a need to "figure it out for yourself".

You stated this about your own aiming system when it goes beyond a very visual 1/2 ball alignment:

""And naturally any cut shot thinner than about a quarter ball hit would be SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE THERE'S NO GOOD REFERENCE TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE THE AIM LINE. Those shots require a lot of practice to develop consistency"
12-04-2017, 11:47 AM

That's a whole lotta bunch of angles and tangent lines for someone to have to figure out on their own.

Fill that void and it'll be better. How? It's YOUR system. Figure it out.

Yes, I've said for shots thinner than a 1/4 (not a 1/2 ball), the player will have to practice in order to become proficient and develop a good feel for aiming. It comes with experience, like learning CTE Pro1 or anything else that involves good judgement. It's something the player figures out through table time, which also builds confidence. I believe most players could easily be nailing 1/4 to 1/8 ball cut shots within a week of practicing them. From there they'll have a better feel for thinner cuts as needed.

 

[BC21]

If everything actually worked according to Hoyle.... but it doesn't... Like I said
"Cue pivot points can change with ball distance. I find it easy to compensate."

The same thing with CB squirt.. Cue ball deflection can change with speed. I
find it easy to compensate.. and with swerve, which is harder to compensate.

If your 1/2 tip CB offset is always used you must do some compensating also.
The game takes feel unless you just want to throw CB control out the window.

.

I'm picking up what you're laying down, especially about the neccessity of feel.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Yes, I've said for shots thinner than a 1/4 (not a 1/2 ball), the player will have to practice in order to become proficient and develop a good feel for aiming. It comes with experience, like learning CTE Pro1 or anything else that involves good judgement.

CTE and all of Hal's 3 line aiming systems (which were over 20) are completely different from fractions, contact point, or GB. Is there judgement?
Only in acquiring the proper visual on the OB for the shot. NOT contact point. I know you said 1/4 ball but 1/2 ball is where the tangible visual ends. 1/4 ball is aimed into space away from the edge of the ball. You say it's easy. I say it's not exact and the start of guessing.

The primary reason for practice is you have to FORGET everything you've ever learned about making the two balls IMPACT at the proper place. That's why I don't even want to look at those drawings you have with tangent lines to the pocket and impact. This is exactly what doesn't need to be studied because it leads right back to forcing one to see a line from the pocket to the OB and CB to OB for visualizing IMPACT. Worthless and counterproductive for learning as well as execution.

Good in theory between math and geometry guys for debate and back patting.

It's something the player figures out through table time, which also builds confidence. I believe most players could easily be nailing 1/4 to 1/8 ball cut shots within a week of practicing them.

I don't. It's 1/2 of a system without visuals plus they have to figure out a lot on their own.

From there they'll have a better feel for thinner cuts as needed.

Then build it into the system.

To me it's like ordering a large 3 topping pizza from Pappa John's for pickup.

You go into the store to pickup and pay, but open the box to see if everything is on top as ordered. The answer is yes.

BUT, it's only 1/2 of a LARGE PIZZA. Not the WHOLE pizza. You say, "What the hell is this? I ordered a LARGE pizza with 3 toppings. This is 1/2 of a Large.

They then say, well that's how our LARGE pizzas are made now. If you want to ADD to the other half, go to the grocery store and buy a D'Giorno's pizza on your own.

Or, here's our recipe. Just go home and build your own pizza to finish ours off. You'll figure it out and be far better off because you won't have to use our store any longer for pizza. You'll have a FEEL for doing it yourself and it might even be better than ours with a few tweaks.

 

[BC21]

Then build it into the system.

To me it's like ordering a large 3 topping pizza from Pappa John's for pickup.

You go into the store to pickup and pay, but open the box to see if everything is on top as ordered. The answer is yes.

BUT, it's only 1/2 of a LARGE PIZZA. Not the WHOLE pizza. You say, "What the hell is this? I ordered a LARGE pizza with 3 toppings. This is 1/2 of a Large.

They then say, well that's how our LARGE pizzas are made now. If you want to ADD to the other half, go to the grocery store and buy a D'Giorno's pizza on your own.

Or, here's our recipe. Just go home and build your own pizza to finish ours off. You'll figure it out and be far better off because you won't have to use our store any longer for pizza. You'll have a FEEL for doing it yourself and it might even be better than ours with a few tweaks.

Lol. This thread is not about my book. It's about something I've figured out about pivots that I wanted to share with those interested. Given any CB to OB relationship, I can show exactly where the OB will go depending on which particular OB ref point you use and the exact pivot method you use. That's pretty cool, and it doesn't have a thing to do with the geometry of a pool table or where the pockets happen to be.

The pizza analogy was cute, but not very accurate. Since you keep side-tracking this thread by poking at Poolology, I'll fix your analogy..... The fractional system in my book is not like a fully-topped pizza that somebody else makes, where all you have to do is pick it up and eat it. It's more like a course on how to make pizza yourself. The basic instructions make a great pizza, and the more you understand and work at it the more toppings you add. But the basic pizza itself is a good enough size to fill 95% of your stomach right out of the box.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Lol. This thread is not about my book. It's about something I've figured out about pivots that I wanted to share with those interested. Given any CB to OB relationship, I can show exactly where the OB will go depending on which particular OB ref point you use and the exact pivot method you use.

Apparently I missed the OUTSIDE pivot one. Is it on there?

The pizza analogy was cute, but not very accurate. Since you keep side-tracking this thread by poking at Poolology, I'll fix your analogy..... The fractional system in my book is not like a fully-topped pizza that somebody else makes, where all you have to do is pick it up and eat it. It's more like a course on how to make pizza yourself.

Yes, for the 2nd 45 degrees. They definitely have to come up with a recipe of their own.

The basic instructions make a great pizza, and the more you understand and work at it the more toppings you add. But the basic pizza itself is a good enough size to fill 95% of your stomach right out of the box.

Actually it's 50%. 30 degrees laid out for them and 15 extra degrees thrown in just to be nice for 45 degrees total.

After that, 45 degrees on their own with their own recipe.

That's it. I'm done. It's lunch time and I think I'm going to go out for a pizza.

 

[BC21]

Actually it's 50%. 30 degrees laid out for them and 15 extra degrees thrown in just to be nice for 45 degrees total.

After that, 45 degrees on their own with their own recipe.

That's it. I'm done. It's lunch time and I think I'm going to go out for a pizza.

Wrong again. The system covers up to 61°, 1/8 ball hits, and that takes care of 95% of the shots that a player regularly faces.

In 34+ years of playing pool and watching pros and other great players play pool, I know it's not often that a shot thinner than a 1/8 hit gets used to pocket a ball. Sure, if the ball is close to the pocket (where there's a wide margin for error) a good player will whizz it right in there if they feel confident. Good players are smart enough to avoid a possible sellout on a 70 to 80 degree cut shot from several feet away from the pocket. When I was younger I tried to make every ball because I thought I could, and I did a lot of losing. Playing smarter has worked out much better.

Oh....yes, the outside pivot can be worked out also, though not shown in the images. Outside pivots just move that yellow target area in more, that's all.

Enjoy lunch.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Enjoy lunch.

The place I went to had a new pizza on their menu. It was called the Brian Crist pizza. You got 1/2 of a pizza with as many toppings as desired but paid full price for a full pizza. It was called the Foolology.

I passed on that one. :rotflmao1: :rotflmao1: