joe tucker aiming system

HawaiianEye said:
This is a prime example of what I've been saying about everybody looking at things differently or interpreting them not the same way.

I know what he is talking about. It is way easier to show somebody at the table.
Click to expand...

Yeah,

It is sometimes difficult to convey a proper picture through a short text.

That is why I said, unless I am missing something.

I'm viewing the OB sitting there & the CB being moved to different locations.

That is a different angled shot to me & would require a different set of numbers.

Is that not correct?

Best 2 You & All.
 
Last edited:
LAMas said:
JB,
Click to expand...
:eek: You sure know how to hurt a guy.

No point but at the farthest distances there needs to be more than 9 numbers.
At my advanced age, 4" pockets and failing eye sight, I can barely handle 9.

Be well.:smile:
Click to expand...
As I said in my post, there needs to be more than 9 numbers at any distance for any size pocket - even for those with younger eyes than you or me. :)

pj
chgo
 
LAMas said:
45 degree cut from the side pocket is 4.5 on the OB to the 4.5 on the CB. I think that 5 to 5 might work with center CB (stun) letting CIT reduce the 50 degree angle to the desired 45 degree...for me.

Just saying until I try it.

Be well.
Click to expand...
It might work if you hit softly with stun and no side spin. Since the cut is thinner than half ball, you might even need a touch of outside to maximize CIT - but definitely no inside spin at that angle.

I think maximum throw is only 5 degrees or so with normal equipment.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It might work if you hit softly with stun and no side spin. Since the cut is thinner than half ball, you might even need a touch of outside to maximize CIT - but definitely no inside spin at that angle.

I think maximum throw is only 5 degrees or so with normal equipment.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

pj,

I concur.

If the OB is close to the pocket and shot at with CCB and slow pocket speed, then 4.5 to 4.5 will work for those that can see 4.5 to 4.5 or imagine it.

Be well.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hi Mike,

Unless I am missing something that sounds like some 3 letter acronym mumbo jumbo.

If the OB is an a 3 line that must be for a shot where the balls are parallel to the rail.

If you move the cue ball way off the line & change the angle, how can it still be a 3 to 3?

You have either lessened or increased the angle.

Or is my reading comprehension & logic off before I finish my first cup of coffee?

Best 2 Ya.

PS Are PJ's diagrams how Joe Tucker designates discerning the shots? I thought it was a direct diamond to number relationship. I know PJ's 'protractor' is accurate, but I thought Joe's method was different
Click to expand...

PJ's diagrams are accurate. Joe's angles are "identified", meaning if you have an object ball sitting on the angle line, there is a corresponding number to send it to the pocket. He didn't pick out random lines of aim to each pocket.

Here's a link that explains it a little better. http://www.saluc.com/html/billiard/pdf/tucker_system.pdf

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
PJ's diagrams are accurate. Joe's angles are "identified", meaning if you have an object ball sitting on the angle line, there is a corresponding number to send it to the pocket. He didn't pick out random lines of aim to each pocket.

Here's a link that explains it a little better. http://www.saluc.com/html/billiard/pdf/tucker_system.pdf

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Hey Mike,

I certainly was not suggesting that he randomly picked lines & I see how the method could work.

I'm just not familiar with the identifying lines & especially how that identifying would be done given different CB positions & lines to the OB that would change the angle of cut.

I'm sure there is some info that I'm lacking to make the picture click.

I tried joining his site but something malfunctioned as it said I would be getting an e-mail but did not get such.

I'll try joining again.

Best 2 Ya.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hey Mike,

I certainly was not suggesting that he randomly picked lines & I see how the method could work.

I'm just not familiar with the identifying lines & especially how that identifying would be done given different CB positions & lines to the OB that would change the angle of cut.

I'm sure there is some info that I'm lacking to make the picture click.

I tried joining his site but something malfunctioned as it said I would be getting an e-mail but did not get such.

I'll try joining again.

Best 2 Ya.
Click to expand...

Try this,

Find the contact point on the OB equator that sends it to the desired target. Get down on the shot behind the CB. From there, the center visual of the OB will be Zero. Then see what number that contact point corresponds to.

Find the same obverse number on the CB and parallel shift the cue from that line to the center of the CB and shoot.

Be well
 
LAMas said:
Try this,

Find the contact point on the OB equator that sends it to the desired target. Get down on the shot behind the CB. From there, the center visual of the OB will be Zero. Then see what number that contact point corresponds to.

Find the same obverse number on the CB and parallel shift the cue from that line to the center of the CB and shoot.

Be well
Click to expand...

Thanks E,

I got that & thought that was how it worked.

It seemed to me that Mike was saying that depending on where the OB is on the table relative to a diamond system or something would identify what number the shot is.

I'm not 'seeing' that, IF that was what he was saying.

Maybe I misread something.

I've done what you say for decades but with no number or fraction designations.

It's just been CP2CP with an equal & opposite overlap. No numbers & no fraction designations.

You Stay Well & Thanks for the Input to Help Out.
 
Hey Rick,

In the link, Bob Jewett talked about the consistent placement of the numbered cue ball and numbered object ball. With the balls set up on the table in this way, the angles to the pocket change as the balls move, but the numbers always face the same direction.

The 9s face the side rails and the 0s face each other. The cue ball 0 points in the direction of the pocket and the object ball 0 faces away from the pocket.

For Joe's system, you can place the object ball on one of the angle lines at any point. The cue ball can be anywhere as long as the shot is possible. With both balls placed correctly facing each other and oriented with the 0-9 numbers, you can match the number to the angle and pocket the ball.

Not using the system, you can use the balls to get the correct CP2CP solution. The balls should still be oriented facing each other. You'll notice that the contact points will correspond to Joe's angles shown in PJ's diagram anyway.

Best,
Mike
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Thanks E,

I got that & thought that was how it worked.

It seemed to me that Mike was saying that depending on where the OB is on the table relative to a diamond system or something would identify what number the shot is.

I'm not 'seeing' that, IF that was what he was saying.

Maybe I misread something.

I've done what you say for decades but with no number or fraction designations.

It's just been CP2CP with an equal & opposite overlap. No numbers & no fraction designations.

You Stay Well & Thanks for the Input to Help Out.
Click to expand...

I concur with the bolded. One can use proportions instead...I do.
Be well.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Thanks E,

I got that & thought that was how it worked.

It seemed to me that Mike was saying that depending on where the OB is on the table relative to a diamond system or something would identify what number the shot is.

I'm not 'seeing' that, IF that was what he was saying.

Maybe I misread something.

I've done what you say for decades but with no number or fraction designations.

It's just been CP2CP with an equal & opposite overlap. No numbers & no fraction designations.

You Stay Well & Thanks for the Input to Help Out.
Click to expand...

If you use the number designations with the balls oriented facing each other, you'll be sitting on or next to one of the 0-9 angles. You don't need the numbered balls to see the contact points. Zero, nine and 4.5 are easy to pick out.

Put a ball on the long rail. That's the 0 line. The front of the cue ball facing the short rail is the corresponding 0 contact point. The front of the object ball facing to the cue ball direction is the other 0 point. From anywhere, you can aim 0 to 0 and pocket the ball, thick or thin...even straight in. Allow for cling, etc.

Another example is the 4.5 angle. Put a ball on the spot. This is the 4.5 aiming line.

The 4.5 contact point is between the front (0) and the side (9) on both balls and easy to see. Move the cue ball anywhere on the table and if you can see the 4.5 contact point on the cue ball to the 4.5 contact point on the object ball, it'll pocket. Allow for speed and spin, as with any aiming line.

If it's not making sense, take it to the table. I was surprised when I learned it, but it's a diagramable way of aiming.

Best,
Mike
 
Last edited:
Mikjary said:
If you use the number designations with the balls oriented facing each other, you'll be sitting on or next to one of the 0-9 angles. You don't need the numbered balls to see the contact points. Zero, nine and 4.5 are easy to pick out.

Put a ball on the long rail. That's the 0 line. The front of the cue ball facing the short rail is the corresponding 0 contact point. The front of the object ball facing to the cue ball direction is the other 0 point. From anywhere, you can aim 0 to 0 and pocket the ball, thick or thin...even straight in. Allow for cling, etc.

Another example is the 4.5 angle. Put a ball on the spot. This is the 4.5 aiming line.

The 4.5 contact point is between the front (0) and the side (9) on both balls and easy to see. Move the cue ball any where on the table and if you can send the 4.5 contact point on the cue ball to the 4.5 contact point on the object ball, it'll pocket. Allow for speed and spin, as with any aiming line.

If it's not making sense, take it to the table. I was surprised when I learned it, but it's a diagramable way of aiming.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Got it Mike. Thanks.

I was somehow not picturing the rotational orientation of the CB being static.

This might actually help with a shot that is one of those misses that keeps popping up from time to time.

It's like one of the best players in my area told me when I asked him about an aiming system. He said you need more than one, that would be 2, or maybe even 3.

Now I just need to get my imaginary skills & eyes tuned up to picture the ends or 'the ten tiny pie slices'.

Best to Ya,
Rick

PS You can remove the oversize pics if you like to re-size this thread. Thanks Again.
 
Last edited:
The ten angles are a bi product of the numbers. I use the regular balls because I've learned the locations of the numbers and can connect the dots.

I look at the object ball contact point to the pocket, figure out which number it is and look for the number to match on the cue ball. If it's a 6 for example, I'll be on or near the 6 angle to pocket the object ball.

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
I look at the object ball contact point to the pocket, figure out which number it is and look for the number to match on the cue ball. If it's a 6 for example, I'll be on or near the 6 angle to pocket the object ball.
Click to expand...
Contact point aimers do the same thing without the numbers - just like you do when you're using Tucker's system without the training balls.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Contact point aimers do the same thing without the numbers - just like you do when you're using Tucker's system without the training balls.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Yeah, they aim at the contact point and compensate for the under cut.

Since many players use the contact point method consciously and probably subconsciously, I think it's interesting that they (me) had to learn Joe's method. If I was probably already doing it subconsciously, why didn't it feel more natural as I was learning it? :smile:

Even my subconscious was holding back pool secrets! Don't feed the fish must apply here. 5numl6L.gif :grin-square:

Best,
Mike
 
I like Tucker's system. It's "granular" (lots of divisions), straightforward, realistic, even educational. I don't think of it as an aiming system, more like a map of the cut angles - a map that could be a helpful "overlay" for any type of aiming, I suppose.

I think the same can be said for fractional aiming methods, except they're less "granular" (and don't come with training aids).

pj
chgo
 
dont shoot the messenger .......please....:smile:
but those that post exact diagrams of tuckers stuff is keeping the interested from buying the dvd from him ( providing the info for free.....:mad: not good )
he did the work
he should get rewarded (imho)
buy the dvd if you you really want to learn his system
jmho
icbw
 
bbb said:
dont shoot the messenger .......please....:smile:
but those that post exact diagrams of tuckers stuff is keeping the interested from buying the dvd from him ( providing the info for free.....:mad: not good )
he did the work
he should get rewarded (imho)
buy the dvd if you you really want to learn his system
jmho
icbw
Click to expand...
Mike's description and my simple drawings don't give away much and are much more likely to raise interest than diminish it - I think they're good advertising for Tucker. A lot of the product's value is in the instructions, drills, presentations and training materials.

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top