All of the aiming and pivoting adjustments can be found here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=377dYGvdnhU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=377dYGvdnhU&feature=related
dr_dave said:I'm not sure if you were lumping me in with the "math and physics guys," but do you really believe we enjoy analysis more than playing?![]()
This certainly is not the case for me. I do spend more time writing, analyzing, filming, reading, and watching than I do playing, but that doesn't diminish how much I love the game. Just to be clear:
I love playing pool more than I love math and physicsand you can quote me on that, but I can't speak for the other "math and physics guys" out there.
Thank you for admitting you have been helped at times. Personally, my search for pool knowledge and physical understanding almost always has an ultimate purpose of helping me and others play better (although, I know my work isn't always perceived that way).
Regards,
Dave
Pii said:No kidding we would also need a system for breaking like God and a system on how to play perfect shape.
Anyone have one?
Every aiming system is an approximation system because of one's sighting flaws / perception flaws. Is it better to sight perfectly and make a small 3 degree correction or sight to a make-believe point that can be off 2-3x more and make no adjustment?
I think what Ron's saying (and Hal) is that one can perceive a ETE (90/90) / CTE line and pivot to center and require less adjustment that perceiving where a ghost ball is and adjusting from there.
Here's a cute test (takes about 3 mins but totally worth it):
http://woodgears.ca/eyeball/
I think eyeball tests like this prove why picking a ghostball in 3D space is a lot harder than sighting two clearly visible points and pivoting to center.
The average adjustment required post-pivot has got to be less than sighting the base of an imaginary ball a number of feet away.
What's your score with that test?
Just pivot ... and all of the balls go in the holes on the break.Pii said:No kidding we would also need a system for breaking like God and a system on how to play perfect shape.
Anyone have one?
dr_dave said:I usually don't like responding to posts like this because, IMO, they are tasteless, insulting, and inappropriate, but I will this time since several users in this thread seem to have similar concerns.
First of all, I don't think any of the people who post negative evaluations of my playing ability have ever seen me play, except on DVDs or online videos. Sometimes I wonder why they feel a need (or think they have a right) to post insulting comments on a public forum about my playing abilities. I was once married to a psychologist, so I can usually come up with some interesting and plausible answers to what motivates the insulting posters, but I won't share them publicly.
Granted, when I posted many of my early videos many years ago, my ability could probably be characterized as "intermediate" (or even "advanced beginner") but I have learned a lot and improved many aspects of my game over the last 5 years. I would characterize my current level of play as "advanced intermediate." But I think understanding, knowledge, ability to give solid advice, and ability to teach have little to do with actual level of play. A person can have knowledge and solid understanding of fundamentals, strategy, CB control, defensive play, shot selection, advanced shot techniques, etc., and be able to provide accurate and useful advice without having advanced playing ability. To be a top player, one must have near perfect speed control, excellent vision and visualization skills, and exceptional stroke accuracy and consistency (in addition to many other things). I honestly do not have these things at a level to be a top player, and I probably never will unless I quit my "day job" and spend many hours practicing every day (and even then, it might not happen). However, I do not think I am lacking in any of the knowledge and understanding necessary to be a top player. But none of this should matter to anybody.
I honestly don't play very much. I am lucky to be able to play once a week at best, and usually only for about 2 hours. I do so mostly for fun with friends. When I film stuff, I spend a great deal of time at the table, but I don't get in much quality practice and play time. I spend most of the time working the cameras, adjusting lights, thinking about what to say, and re-shooting misses because I wasn't focused on the shot. Despite my lack of time for adequate practice and play time, I do think about the game a lot. I also watch and study every televised pool event, watch top players live whenever I get a chance, and read almost everything about pool in all available mainstream books, magazines, and forums. I have also been fortunate to spend time with and learn from many great instructors and some great players including Randy Goettlicher, Jerry Briesath, Tom Ross, and Bob Jewett. I also frequently communicate with many top instructors and players around the country and world, who often ask me questions via e-mail. I also teach a pool course regularly with Dave Gross, who is a top notch player. I think we have learned a great deal from each other and from our many students.
I prefer to be judged based on all of the resources, education, and input I provide through my book, DVDs, courses, private lessons, extensive collection of online videos, Billiards Digest articles, forum contributions, etc. If anybody questions anything in any of my resources as being incorrect or poor advice, I am always wiling to discuss the matter, film additional shots and/or do analysis to support my claims, and happily and thankfully change my mind when I am proven wrong.
I hope this addresses the "concerns" of some of the people who care about such things.
Now back to useful and productive work and discussion,
Dave
Excellent points!!!JoeyA said:If I really loved playing pool more than I did writing about, analyzing, filming, reading and watching pool I would be doing more pool playing. :wink:
I wish you would just go ahead and admit that you like writing about pool, analyzing, filming, reading and watching pool more than you do playing pool.![]()
Thanks.JoeyA said:FTR, I especially like your slow motion videos of different shots as well as your videos that show that SIDE SPIN APPLIED TO THE CUE BALL can be TRANSFERED to the OBJECT BALL.
There are some who still refuse to believe that.![]()
Fair enough. Maybe I should lump you right in there with the anti-math guys, but that wouldn't be fair or appropriate. You seem reasonable, knowledgeable, and fair almost all of the time. I always look forward to reading your posts.JoeyA said:(I lump Dr. Dave right in there with the math guys)
You should be one of those celebrity commentators on one of those Aflac commercials. :grin-square:JoeyA said:(If it quacks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it is probably a duck.)![]()
I think you are all right also. Thanks for the message.JoeyA said:JoeyA (thinks a math guy is all right)
dr_dave said:You seem reasonable, knowledgeable, and fair almost all of the time. I always look forward to reading your posts.
Sincerely,
Dave
JoeyA said:FAIR ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME?
Just what is that supposed to mean?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Now you've gone and done it.![]()
![]()
JoeyA
Nobody is perfect, even "experts" like me. :wink:JoeyA said:FAIR ALMOST ALL OF THE TIME?
Just what is that supposed to mean?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Now you've gone and done it.![]()
![]()
JoeyA
Jude Rosenstock said:I just wanted to say a few things. I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread so bear with me.
I've known Ron V for quite a while now. We don't see eye-to-eye on many things related to pool HOWEVER, he is an excellent player AND he truly believes in his systems. In my humble opinion, any player of his calibre is entitled to teach pool and to convey their approach on how to pocket balls. A teaching approach is very difficult to validate. There is, of course, the science behind method but the bottom line is, does it create a positive end result? That is the ultimate question. To date, I have yet to see a physics teacher coach a player to win a major tournament. Does that discredit those that preach the proven physics of the game? Absolutely not.
It is essential, in my opinion, to be a good pool player in order to teach pool. You should have tournament experience, league experience and gambling experience if you intend to teach people who intend to play pool in these arenas. You should have knowledge of multiple games, be capable of executing almost any shot that's ever been done (even if it takes a bunch of times) and be able to immediately recognize HOW a shot is done the moment it's witnessed.
Anything less than this will put limits on the type of student you should take on. Anything less than this and you leave yourself as fair game to criticism if you go on to write a column for a national publication or a book on how to play pool. This is my litmus test and, IMO, Ron V passes it. You may not agree with Ron's approach. That's fair. If his approach doesn't help you, you're entitled to look elsewhere. However, the guy is a very good player. His book is about how to play pool from a player's perspective, not a physics teacher's perspective. Yes, things may or may not add up but that's not the point. The point is, for some, it might create the image in their heads that will yield better results. It has for him.
Jude Rosenstock said:I just wanted to say a few things. I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread so bear with me.
I've known Ron V for quite a while now. We don't see eye-to-eye on many things related to pool HOWEVER, he is an excellent player AND he truly believes in his systems. In my humble opinion, any player of his calibre is entitled to teach pool and to convey their approach on how to pocket balls. A teaching approach is very difficult to validate. There is, of course, the science behind method but the bottom line is, does it create a positive end result? That is the ultimate question. To date, I have yet to see a physics teacher coach a player to win a major tournament. Does that discredit those that preach the proven physics of the game? Absolutely not.
It is essential, in my opinion, to be a good pool player in order to teach pool. You should have tournament experience, league experience and gambling experience if you intend to teach people who intend to play pool in these arenas. You should have knowledge of multiple games, be capable of executing almost any shot that's ever been done (even if it takes a bunch of times) and be able to immediately recognize HOW a shot is done the moment it's witnessed.
Anything less than this will put limits on the type of student you should take on. Anything less than this and you leave yourself as fair game to criticism if you go on to write a column for a national publication or a book on how to play pool. This is my litmus test and, IMO, Ron V passes it. You may not agree with Ron's approach. That's fair. If his approach doesn't help you, you're entitled to look elsewhere. However, the guy is a very good player. His book is about how to play pool from a player's perspective, not a physics teacher's perspective. Yes, things may or may not add up but that's not the point. The point is, for some, it might create the image in their heads that will yield better results. It has for him.
What good is 'exact in nature' when it's offset with sighting perception that's more imperfect than ETE/CTE.
Patrick Johnson said:However good or bad an "exact" system combined with imperfect execution is, an inexact system combined with imperfect execution can't be better.
pj
chgo
Jude Rosenstock said:It is essential, in my opinion, to be a good pool player in order to teach pool. You should have tournament experience, league experience and gambling experience if you intend to teach people who intend to play pool in these arenas. You should have knowledge of multiple games, be capable of executing almost any shot that's ever been done (even if it takes a bunch of times) and be able to immediately recognize HOW a shot is done the moment it's witnessed.
Patrick Johnson said:Who in this thread do you think doesn't meet these criteria? Otherwise, what's the relevance here?
pj
chgo
Jude Rosenstock said:I just wanted to say a few things. I haven't read all 20 pages of this thread so bear with me.
I've known Ron V for quite a while now. We don't see eye-to-eye on many things related to pool HOWEVER, he is an excellent player AND he truly believes in his systems. In my humble opinion, any player of his calibre is entitled to teach pool and to convey their approach on how to pocket balls. A teaching approach is very difficult to validate. There is, of course, the science behind method but the bottom line is, does it create a positive end result? That is the ultimate question. To date, I have yet to see a physics teacher coach a player to win a major tournament. Does that discredit those that preach the proven physics of the game? Absolutely not.
It is essential, in my opinion, to be a good pool player in order to teach pool. You should have tournament experience, league experience and gambling experience if you intend to teach people who intend to play pool in these arenas. You should have knowledge of multiple games, be capable of executing almost any shot that's ever been done (even if it takes a bunch of times) and be able to immediately recognize HOW a shot is done the moment it's witnessed.
Anything less than this will put limits on the type of student you should take on. Anything less than this and you leave yourself as fair game to criticism if you go on to write a column for a national publication or a book on how to play pool. This is my litmus test and, IMO, Ron V passes it. You may not agree with Ron's approach. That's fair. If his approach doesn't help you, you're entitled to look elsewhere. However, the guy is a very good player. His book is about how to play pool from a player's perspective, not a physics teacher's perspective. Yes, things may or may not add up but that's not the point. The point is, for some, it might create the image in their heads that will yield better results. It has for him.
You're dodging my perception point - which is the foundation, imo.However good or bad an "exact" system combined with imperfect execution is, an inexact system combined with imperfect execution can't be better.
pj
chgo
I'd love to test this in person with you sometime (scientific test).