90/90 pivot

N

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The other day I made the statement that it does not matter what your bridge length is when pivoting for 90/90. I believe the same holds true for CTE, but your initial alignment is different for CTE.

There was controversy over my statement, with some claiming that it does matter, and some going to some trouble to explain why it matters. I was asked to review my findings, and explain it better if I found my findings to be correct.

I have done that, and found that both "sides"are correct. Pivot length CAN matter. But, only when one is not aligned properly for the system to start with. When properly aligned, bridge length does not matter. Below is a new video I put up which I hope explains it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkm9WE8HMoE&feature=youtu.be
 
Neil, I'm sure you'll appreciate this. LOL

800px-Oh_no%2C_not_this_shit_again.jpg
 
Neil said:
Nob, did you watch the video??

Any one have any thoughts on it??
Click to expand...

Neil, I will. I was just joking. You realize no matter what you post, no matter what you do, no matter if you would prove whatever point you want to make, there will be someone from the Hater Group that comes along and picks at it. English is just dying to I'll bet. He'll ask a bunch of passive aggressive questions and play innocent little lamb as usual I'm sure.

By the way, I don't even need to watch the video to know you are right. I've watched a fair amount of your material and have watched you post. You have a habit of being correct much to the consternation of the Hater Group.
 
Neil said:
go ahead...
Click to expand...

While you mean well, & that is a fairly good attempt to 'figure out' or rationalise to what what you want to be true...where your eyes, or sight line, are, as in parallel to the cue line, has no effect on the physical pivot for different lengths of pivot

If you pivot on the line with you eyes sighted on the cue line & get a different angled cue for the the different pivot lengths, then just because you shift your eyes to a parallel line of the cue does not mean you will get a different result than when the different pivot lengths yielded different results.

It just means that you will see the results differently from the different eye or sight line position. Now I understand that you will see center cue ball differently from the different head eye sight lines, but that means that the pivots of each from the same pivot length would be of different amounts.

I am not saying that what you show here is not a good way to do it or not for 90/90 as I have hardly used it beyond a simple look see. Perhaps if I did it the way you show I might have used it more.

What I am saying is that what you did here hardly shows that physical pivot length makes no difference as to the new orientation of the cue. If I were you or anyone else I'd believe what Colin says as he has done some rather extensive studies in that area & then just go try it for one's self.

I noticed in the video & I realise that you were not actually shooting a shot, but your entire head & eyes moved to the right when you did the supposed proper method. Now that too would effect the amount of the pivots.

One has to keep in mind the physical vs the visual & sighting down the different lines. As you probably know I have been shooting with english for many years. I would think that you & I would be rather precise sighting parallel, but others might not. I honestly do not recall, but I do not remember 90/90 having any instruction regarding the offset head, eye, sight line in it.

I am not looking to get into any argument with you. I am merely trying to point out the difference between the real physical & what maybe better termed as visually or practically given some qualification for the sake of clarity.

I would not want anyone to misunderstand that your video is conclusive proof as to different pivot lengths yielding no differences.

Sincerely,
Rick

PS I composed this in a hurry as I had to leave to pick up my Grandson, so there may be some small error but the content of what I mean is basically there.
 
Last edited:
Neil, just watched it. Well done. It appears that it is the offset, just like with CTE/Pro One, that results in the bridge distance is mostly irrelevant. I still am simply amazed how many of the Hater Group wants to try to argue about it when they have no clue whatsoever how these aiming systems work.

If any of them took the time to actually learn the system and subsequently ask some reasonable questions based upon some knowledge, there would be no aiming wars. Of course, if they did that, they'd see how good these systems are and would be changing sides.
 
ENGLISH! said:
While you mean well, & that is a fairly good attempt to 'figure out' or rationalise to what what you want to be true...where your eyes, or sight line, are, as in parallel to the cue line, has no effect on the physical pivot for different lenhtgs of pivot

If you pivot on the line with you eyes sighted on the cue line & get a different angled cue for the the different pivot lengths, then just because you shift your eyes to a parallel line of the cue does not mean you will get a different result than when the different pivot lengths yielded different results.

It just means that you will see the results differently from the different eye or sight line position. Now I understand that you will see center cue ball differently from the different head eye sight lines, but that means that the pivots of each from the same pivot length would be of different amounts.

I am not saying that what you show here is not a good way to do it or not for 90/90 as I have hardly used it beyond a simple look see. Perhaps if I did it the way you show I might have used it more.

What I am saying is that what you did here hardly shows that physical pivot length makes no difference as to the new orientation of the cue. If I were you or anyone else I'd believe what Colin says as he has done some rather extensive studies in that area & then just go try it for one's self.

I noticed in the video & I realise that you were not actually shooting a shot, but your entire head & eyes moved to the right when you did the supposed proper method. Now that too would effect the amount of the pivots.

One has to keep in mind the physical vs the visual & sighting down the different lines. As you probably know I have been shooting with english for many years. I would think that you & I would be rather precise sighting parallel, but others would not. I honestly do not recall, but I do not remember 90/90 having any instruction regarding the offset head, eye, sight line in it.

I am not looking to get into any argument with you. I am merely trying to point the difference between the real physical & what maybe better termed as visually or practically given some qualification for the sake of clarity.

I would not want anyone to misunderstand that your video is conclusive proof as to different pivot lengths yielding no differences.

Sincerely,
Rick

Ps O composed this in a hurry as had to leave to pick up my grandson so there may some small error but the content of what I mean is basically there.
Click to expand...

Rick, with all due respect, let me sum up what you wrote: I don't understand the difference between parallel and parallax viewing, so I really don't understand what you just proved. But, despite that, I just happen to believe Colin over you.
 
nobcitypool said:
Neil, I'm sure you'll appreciate this. LOL

800px-Oh_no%2C_not_this_shit_again.jpg
Click to expand...


I agree...lol

Neil , unless I just didn't understand what Ron said, this wasn't what he was saying to me. And your also wrong about the pivot length, sorry ,I tested it for myself,and the shorter bridge cut the ball thinner.

If Dave can confirm that this is what Ron teaches, I'll admit I was doing it wrong.
I sight down the cue on just the inside of the cb and turn my hips or body to center cb. (where I aiming the cue at the start, at 1 of 3 targets on the ob.) And you can bet your a$$ the bridge length matters.

Nice video though.
Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • table 12.jpg
    table 12.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 1,201
Last edited:
8pack said:
I agree...lol

Neil , unless I just didn't understand what Ron said, this wasn't what he was saying to me. And your also wrong about the pivot length, sorry ,I tested it for myself,and the shorter bridge cut the ball thinner.

If Dave can confirm that this is what Ron teaches, I'll admit I was doing it wrong.
I sight down the cue on just the inside of the cb and turn my hips or body to center cb. (where I aiming the cue at the start, at 1 of 3 targets on the ob.) And you can bet your a$$ the bridge length matters.

Nice video though.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

Did I say anywhere that that is exactly how Ron teaches it? No, I didn't. Second, Ron was a little ambiguous on that part. So, if you take it the way you did, then yes, pivot length matters. Just like I showed in the video.

Bottom line is this- what do you want for your game? The way that you feel Ron stated, which has obvious flaws to it; or the way I showed, that is foolproof?

Now, what Ron stated, was to put your cue just inside the edge to edge line. Basically, the outermost edge of your ferrule is lined up edge to edge. Please note, that I also advocate the exact same thing. Also note, that Ron did not state to stand on that line, only to put your cue on that line. Putting your cue on that perceived line puts your bridge hand on that line. In reality, nothing different from what I am doing, to what Ron states to do. I just clarified a point about it that is what makes it work.
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
Did I say anywhere that that is exactly how Ron teaches it? No, I didn't. Second, Ron was a little ambiguous on that part. So, if you take it the way you did, then yes, pivot length matters. Just like I showed in the video.

Bottom line is this- what do you want for your game? The way that you feel Ron stated, which has obvious flaws to it; or the way I showed, that is foolproof?
Click to expand...

So you fixed 90/90? I will have to look at that video again.
Mark
 
pool101 said:
So you fixed 90/90? I will have to look at that video again.
Mark
Click to expand...

Fixed it? No. There wasn't anything the matter with it to start with. Only clarified a point. That clarification makes it much easier to use for some.
 
Neil said:
Rick, with all due respect, let me sum up what you wrote: I don't understand the difference between parallel and parallax viewing, so I really don't understand what you just proved. But, despite that, I just happen to believe Colin over you.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the lightly veil insult.

Look at something with the left eye closed & point at it then open the left & close the right. The object appears to have moved from where you were first pointing.

Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.

To be honest I saw nothing in your video that had anything to do with parallax sight.

If it did, I missed it. Sorry.

I thought you had a line from 'edge' to edge' & then said to move the head to look center to center. That would be 2 parallel lines.

If I misunderstood what you did or I did not hear you properly, I apologize.

It's easy enough for anyone to do a simple test of their own, Simply pivot from edge to center with a very short bridge & see where the cue points, or hit the ball & see where it goes & then repeat the process with a very long bridge & see where the cue points or hit the ball & see where it goes.

From that everyone can make their own determinations.

Again, sorry if missed something in your premise.

You have a good evening Neil.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Thanks for the lightly veil insult.

Look at something with the left eye closed & point at it then open the left & close the right. The object appears to have moved from where you were first pointing.

Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.

To be honest I saw nothing in your video that had anything to do with parallax sight.

If it did, I missed it. Sorry.

I thought you had a line from 'edge' to edge' & then said to move the head to look center to center. That would be 2 parallel lines.

If I misunderstood what you did or I did not hear you properly, I apologize.

It's easy enough for anyone to do a simple test of their own, Simply pivot from edge to center with a very short bridge & see where the cue points, or hit the ball & see where it goes & then repeat the process with a very long bridge & see where the cue points or hit the ball & see where it goes.

From that everyone can make their own determinations.

Again, sorry if missed something in your premise.

You have a good evening Neil.
Click to expand...

Yes, you misunderstood. It has everything to do with parallax viewing.

And, yes, it is a very easy test. As the video shows. Follow the steps as given, and you will get the same results I did. Or, you can follow the steps as you want them to be, and get the results you speak of.

You see, I'm not asking anyone to take me at my word. That is exactly why I put up a video showing what I was doing. So others could duplicate it, and see for themselves. I'm just trying to help others. Not sit here arguing with those that won't even try things for themselves but still feel the need to point out where I'm wrong. One would think that if you are going to argue it, you would at least view the video closely enough to be able to talk about it accurately. Otherwise, you just come off looking foolish and trying to start something.
 
Neil said:
Yes, you misunderstood. It has everything to do with parallax viewing.

And, yes, it is a very easy test. As the video shows. Follow the steps as given, and you will get the same results I did. Or, you can follow the steps as you want them to be, and get the results you speak of.

You see, I'm not asking anyone to take me at my word. That is exactly why I put up a video showing what I was doing. So others could duplicate it, and see for themselves. I'm just trying to help others. Not sit here arguing with those that won't even try things for themselves but still feel the need to point out where I'm wrong. One would think that if you are going to argue it, you would at least view the video closely enough to be able to talk about it accurately. Otherwise, you just come off looking foolish and trying to start something.
Click to expand...

Like I said in my first post, I'm not looking to argue with you. I know the difference between parallax & parallel. I've said what I wanted to say & anyone can do the tests & make their own determinations.

Sleep Well Neil.
 
Last edited:
Neil said:
Yes, you misunderstood. It has everything to do with parallax viewing.

And, yes, it is a very easy test. As the video shows. Follow the steps as given, and you will get the same results I did. Or, you can follow the steps as you want them to be, and get the results you speak of.

You see, I'm not asking anyone to take me at my word. That is exactly why I put up a video showing what I was doing. So others could duplicate it, and see for themselves. I'm just trying to help others. Not sit here arguing with those that won't even try things for themselves but still feel the need to point out where I'm wrong. One would think that if you are going to argue it, you would at least view the video closely enough to be able to talk about it accurately. Otherwise, you just come off looking foolish and trying to start something.
Click to expand...

Neil, question for you about the actual pivot point. Is it at the "V" of the bridge? Im not getting a clear answer on your video.
Thanks
Chuck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top