I don't think so. I think you misunderstood my diagram.
I doubt that you'll ever understand why it isn't necessary.
pj
chgo
Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.
- Thread starter RonV
- Start date
I don't think so. I think you misunderstood my diagram.
I doubt that you'll ever understand why it isn't necessary.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
and
Right. Table. This is why.SpiderWebComm said:
You've locked yourself onto your side of the debate such that even when it's obvious you two are talking about different things, you'd rather try to convince me you're both talking about the same thing? Why?
Fred
Dave didn't criticize Ron, though introducing 90/90 into the discussion made it seem so.Cornerman said:
But I do think he criticized the system proponents as a whole, and I for one think they deserve some of it. If you're gonna claim a system, you ought to provide reasons for how/why it works or declare that you don't know how/why it works.
The attempt at humorous mocking should probably have been left out.
I don't think Dave would be doing his job if he didn't attempt to explain these systems. People are wanting to know something about hot and new topics. That's journalism.
So he doesn't get it all right according to all those who have had the chance to publish their ideas for years. You can hardly find two system users who agree amongst themselves how they do it. It's little wonder Dave's article couldn't please the users.
Let the proponents get their pens and paper out and improve upon what Dave wrote or prove him wrong. At least he made an effort to explain these systems to those who have little concept of them.
Colin
Patrick Johnson said:
Your diagram assumed a rotational pivot (long arc to center) as opposed to a shifting pivot (short arc to center).
Your diagram could be right for someone who doesn't know how to pivot-aim and tried to follow the directions in that previous thread from months ago. It's not correct in practice - your pivot assumption was all wrong. The diagram was not correct. I can prove it.
PJ - come out to the super billiard expo. get out of your basement and stand up for what you believe in and for what you think you know. I won't bite, I'm polite and a gentleman. I'll even buy you dinner. Just get there.
Last edited:
Cornerman said:
Fred,
It is not an "objection", it is just an observation. I just can't understand the constant bickering between guys who think that systems are a method by which all pool players can elevate their game. You all seem to have different ways of making your point. Don't you guys ever agree on anything ?
Dick
You didn't even try the shots in your diagram and you don't understand 90/90. What did I misunderstand??Patrick Johnson said:
Why it isn't necessary to physically try the system before trashing it, you're right I don't understand.
SJDinPHX said:
Well, for many people here, it's a first time realization that perspectives on how to pocket balls is often unique. Honestly, I can tell you everything that goes through my head before I pull the trigger. I can tell you exactly what I'm looking for, what I'm aiming at but the bottom line is, it's MY system and nobody can copy it. You may THINK you're using a system others use but frankly, it's your perspective of a system you're using. This can make it better or worse than the results of the original author.
The bottom line, IMO, if you want to get better at this game, you have to teach yourself how to pocket balls. That means, you need to get a table, practice until you miss and then ask yourself the most basic question - why did I miss? It's really surprising how much progress you can make if you really sit there and analyse yourself instead of getting frustrated every time the ball doesn't go in.
Jude's post reminded me of another point.
Regardless of whether you use a "named" aiming system or have your own method, the bottom line is that you MUST have a consistent, repeatable process or routine to pocket balls. I mean, what is the definition of consistency? Isn't it something like being able to do the same thing , over and over, the same, each time? Wouldn't it be easier if you used the same approach each time?
Honestly, I think that is why some ppl stay "C" players their whole Pool lives; they reinvent the shot all the time, rather than figure out how to make it repeatable.
Eric
Regardless of whether you use a "named" aiming system or have your own method, the bottom line is that you MUST have a consistent, repeatable process or routine to pocket balls. I mean, what is the definition of consistency? Isn't it something like being able to do the same thing , over and over, the same, each time? Wouldn't it be easier if you used the same approach each time?
Honestly, I think that is why some ppl stay "C" players their whole Pool lives; they reinvent the shot all the time, rather than figure out how to make it repeatable.
Eric
Eric. said:
You're right but for a lot of people, they're looking for a shortcut through the learning curve. No matter your methods, you're going to have to pocket thousands upon thousands of balls to get your brain properly wired.
SJDinPHX said:
Well, have you tried using the cueball first?
Spidey,SpiderWebComm said:
I know you were referring to PJ's diagram (from a previous thread), but I wanted to add to the discussion.
Here are the diagrams from my November '08 article that show what happens when you use a fixed pivot without changing your bridge length (see the article for the detailed explanation of the diagram):
Here's a diagram from my December '08 article that shows what happens when you vary your bridge length or effective pivot length (see the article for the detailed explanation of the diagram):
Obviously, to make pivot-based aiming systems work for a wide range of shots you need to vary either your bridge length or your effective pivot length (e.g., by shifting the top of your bridge hand, as you demonstrated in your video). You are correct. A fixed bridge and fixed effective pivot length won't get the job done. I think you are making the exact point I and others have been trying to make all along. The systems obviously work for many people. We are just trying to explain why so they might work for others also.
Regards,
Dave
Excellent post. I think most people would agree with this ... and you and I don't seem to agree very much lately. Hopefully, this is the first step toward a more peaceful relationship in the future (not likely, but I can still be hopeful).Eric. said:
Regards,
Dave
dr_dave said:
Dave,
It's never been a "personal" issue between us. You seem like a like-able guy (through your postings). If I met you, I'd probably think you were a good guy, so it's never been a like/dislike issue.
The only issue I've had is the constant referrals back to your self promotional website, and your disingenuous positioning as a "Pool authority".
Eric
It's obvious to me that we are talking about the same thing. Why are you trying to convince me we aren't?
You're fixated on my use of the word "execution". By that I meant perception (as I told you before). I meant perception because that's what Dave said he was talking about. You can see that I meant perception because (1) I used the word perception in my posts and (2) I've told you so.
Is there something about what I said about perception that makes you think I'm not talking about perception?
pj
chgo
There's nothing disingenuous about Dave's "positioning himself as a 'pool authority'". He is a pool authority. He knows more about pool than almost anybody here. Top pool pros know far less than Dave. Are they "pool authorities"?
pj
chgo