Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

shinigami said:
It's still a pivot. It's just not at the bridge that's all~
Click to expand...

Well yes, moving your bridge hand over and also pivoting about your bridge is equivalent to pivoting about some other unknown point.

I suppose it's just semantics, but to me the overall motion is only a "pivot" if you specify the point about which you're pivoting.
 
mikepage said:
Well yes, moving your bridge hand over and also pivoting about your bridge is equivalent to pivoting about some other unknown point.

I suppose it's just semantics, but to me the overall motion is only a "pivot" if you specify the point about which you're pivoting.
Click to expand...

Yea the people who learned from Ron say that they are pivoting at the hips but I want to see this for myself. Since I live 5 miles from NYC, I plan on getting a lesson from Ron soon. Hopefully, everything will become clear after taking some lessons.
 
All I know is since my lesson with Ron 2 months ago I almost never miss a kick shot and my ball pocketing % has been so high I have finally moved up to a SL9 in the APA. ANd I don't think it was mere coincidence shortly after I met RONV I have been playing some of the best pool EVER. THanks Ron.
 
Last edited:
For what it is worth, a quote from Ron taken from the ealier thread:
when you turn the hip, the whole body moves...Which means head shoulders hip rear end and of course thti of the stick...The bridge hand does not ever move, maybe a little skin but never any palm movement
Click to expand...
 
JMS said:
I don't give a DAM about DR Dave (pun intended). All I know is since my lesson with Ron 2 months ago I almost never miss a kick shot and my ball pocketing % has been so high I have finally moved up to a SL9 in the APA. ANd I don't think it was mere coincidence shortly after I met RONV I have been playing some of the best pool EVER. THanks Ron.
Click to expand...

Before this thread turns into an US v THEM shouting match, (though it kind of was from Ron's first post), let me state, or restate some positions of the so called opposition (or at least as I perceive them).

1. Such systems, as the 90/90 taught by Ron are useful to players. Kudos for teaching them and congrats to those they help.

2. Such systems could be improved through a better description of how they work. (Unfortunately this often requires a technical understanding that many don't have an interest in investigating).

The conflict tends to arise when the so called theorists, (though some of us play quite well and have used or these systems to some degree), point out that the descriptions given are incomplete, sometimes in error and/or could be improved.

That smacks of arrogance and condescension to some, but it is also intended as a method of sharing an understanding that has been accumulated over much time and analysis of the game.

I know for one that I'm much better off for listening to those who have corrected me, or influenced me to explain ideas and methods more precisely and comprehensively. Dr. Dave is one of those guys I learned a lot from.

imho, criticism of some of the claims of how these systems work and how they can be implemented will be of great benefit to improving those systems.

I for one have tried a lot of shots using 90/90 as described. Unfortunately most of my shots were inaccurate compared to my usual shooting. Some put me in the ball park, other extreme shots miss by a lot, some go straight in.

It's obvious from my experiments that I need to either adjust my initial offset, my bridge length or my pivot point in some way to make the system work accurately. The problem is, no descriptive method has been provided to me for doing this.

I'm quite capable of making my own adjustment system, but it doesn't seem wrth the time to me. I think, if I were to continue trying the system, that I'd be better off to have a range of shots where they put me in the ball park, and then use a little feel from there.

However, the system has not been publically presented in a way that makes this easy for me. So for me, it is an incomplete system, at least as it has been presented in these forums.

God knows how so many others seem to have read the same (I suspect less) advice and come away with glowing reports.

To summarize, I hope the 90/90 and other systems are explained and discussed more publically, such that they can be analyzed, improved and shared with more players with better effect. Now that is the kind of pool education Peter Drucker invisioned.

Colin
 
I have not seen Rob's lessons, so can't say anything about them. However I did buy Dr. Dave's book and watched all of his videos of the shots and instruction in his book on his web site. As most of you know I've begun playing again. I played 2 weeks before I got the book and watched the videos. In those first 2 weeks I made very good progress the first week, but after that I hit a brick wall at improving anymore.

I used Dr. Dave's book as a refresher course so to speak. After reading it and watching the videos, I'm shooting as an B player. I really never was much stronger than a B+ on a bar table in all the years I'd played on them. Sure, I had flashes of an A player from time to time, but that's all they were...flashes. Times when I was hitting them good, getting the rolls, and front running. I'm very glad I bought his book.

Out of all the stuff I read in the book, only 3 things I was doing wrong. One was I wasn't turned enough in my stance, letting my arm brush my body and throwing the QB to the right. The other was keeping my stick level and following through. The 3rd was...I'm not telling. Just let's say the shot doesn't come up that often...thank God. I was putting the wrong English on it. Johnnyt
 
RonV said:
[snip RonV's silly diatribe]
Click to expand...

You're way off base here, Ron. Dr. Dave isn't selling anything, is completely open and free with his information, goes out of his way to avoid bias and unfair criticism, knows exactly what he's talking about, and demonstrates it extensively in ways that are available to anybody with a computer. Rather than trying to trash him on the internet you should be wishing you were more like him.

pj
chgo
 
alternate system?

I read once that the best way to learn how to aim is to shoot <Dr. Evil's voice> "one million" shots.

1,000,000 shots = 10,000 racks of 10-ball
10,000 racks = 28 racks a day for 365 days (roughly)
28 racks = 3.5 racks per hour in an 8 hour day

So, if you can shoot around 4 racks of 10-ball per hour for 8 hours a day for 1 whole year, you will know how to aim. :grin-square:
 
If you come to NYC I WILL GIVE A FREE TWO HOUR LESSON and prove to you and answer every question you throw at me...call me (h) 212-737-0077 cell 917-656-7189
 
RonV said:
If you come to NYC I WILL GIVE A FREE TWO HOUR LESSON and prove to you and answer every question you throw at me...call me (h) 212-737-0077 cell 917-656-7189
Click to expand...


Okay, I'll bite~ :thumbup: I'll be coming to NYC this Saturday the 29th and next Saturday the 6th of December. Any time during the afternoon/evening on one of those two days is fine with me. PM me your open schedule please.

If you decide to take me up on the lesson, I will report back to AZ and try to give as an unbiased review as I can. Although, I figure this will be very difficult, as your students have all sworn by your system
 
Colin: 90/90 won't make every shot on the table. You must also use 90/half, 90/reverse-90, etc. That's only 25% of the system.

Dave
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You're way off base here, Ron. Dr. Dave isn't selling anything, is completely open and free with his information, goes out of his way to avoid bias and unfair criticism, knows exactly what he's talking about, and demonstrates it extensively in ways that are available to anybody with a computer. Rather than trying to trash him on the internet you should be wishing you were more like him.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Beautifully said.
 
Rich93 said:
Beautifully said.
Click to expand...

Although I'm just an outsider looking in, I think Ron's discontentment has to do with the fact that Dr. Dave posted an incorrect diagram referencing his system in a national publication - and then said it didn't work. I can see why he's upset.

I know people here prob think I'm a system-fanatic and that I blindly support Ron and Hal. Math should be used to prove/disprove any system. HOWEVER, you have to know the system and use the correct proof to prove one way or another. Don't use the wrong math (based on something that isn't happening) and say it doesn't work.

I'm all for the math. I said this before in the last heated thread. Let's use the RIGHT math that refers to what's actually happening. That's all I'm saying. Let's draw conclusions when that happens--- it hasn't happened yet.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
You're way off base here, Ron. Dr. Dave isn't selling anything, is completely open and free with his information, goes out of his way to avoid bias and unfair criticism, knows exactly what he's talking about, and demonstrates it extensively in ways that are available to anybody with a computer. Rather than trying to trash him on the internet you should be wishing you were more like him.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
The problem is he used your diagram, which we told you was wrong. When we asked you to go to a pool table and try it you said what, I don't have to, I know it won't work, or something to that effect. If you won't try it don't post on it!!!!
 
I've read with interest pretty much everything on this forum since February or so when I found it. I quit playing for 5 years, been playing for about a year or so now, and finally got my stroke and game back to previous levels, maybe even a bit higher, based on lots of practice and study and immersing myself in the game again. This forum has been a help and a good diversion at work too... :) I haven't commented much on other aiming threads thus far, but this one prompted me to do so.

My take on aiming systems etc. - I never really heard about this sort of thing 5 or 6 years ago when I was playing heavily. I learned basically ghost ball method, and intuitively just aim 95%+ of my shots with no issues, adjusting for speed, english, curve, deflection, etc. pretty easily based on years of playing. Always assumed everyone else did the same thing. Never really heard or read much about rock-solid aiming systems that worked for all shots, either in print, RSB, etc.

So with a truly open mind I treat this as valuable new information I could be adding to my game to improve, just like some "new" kicking systems and other concepts I've added to my game that I didn't have 5 years ago. They are all tools in the belt. In a way it's like a search for the holy grail - if I'm relatively well coordinated, have good eyesight and a straight stroke honed from 15 years of playing at a decent level, then maybe some of those weird shots that come up I won't have to guess where to hit by feel, I can double check myself or just plain use an actual aiming system giving me confidence to make the ball everytime etc. And maybe I go up a notch in play and have an advantage over someone who doesn't know the information.

I do agree with the more scientific of the group (Colin, Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, etc.) that us math/science guys need to see the geometry explained, diagrammed, etc. for it to truly make sense, and if there is some physical pivoting component to the system that can't be diagrammed on a 2D piece of paper then describe it using as many words as you need, or simply make a video and share. Concepts like backhand and front hand english, pivoting, etc. are mentioned but not always discussed at length, unless you find the right thread or detailed article or video. Sometimes it feels more like it was when I started playing (pre-internet) when everything was a big secret not to be shared. If you want it to stay secretive, then don't mention it. If you are sharing, then tell people how it works without being so mysterious. That part of Dr. Dave's article and other posts I've read I totally get and agree with.

On the flip side, people that have taken lessons and learned aiming systems from Shuffett, Houle, Ron, and others swear by it. And there's the whole "Filipino mystique", what do Efren, Busta, etc. do and why is their game so much different etc. "Spider" Dave seems like a reasonable guy, and from his videos is personable and seems to be a decent player. Even fired back some nice responses to a few PM's I shot him. So if he says it helps, I tend to believe him, maybe even more so than just a random poster. So even though the rational part of my brain says there is no 3 or 6 or x line system for all shots, and infinite adjustments and feel are necessary based on distance, angle, english, etc., there may be something to all of this. I, like Colin I think, would just like to have a reasonable explanation, not even overly technical or a full geometric proof or anything, of what edge to aim to what center, when to go left, when to go right, how and when to aim and pivot and adjust (when approaching the shot, when settling in, on the final stroke), etc. Unless I missed a part of a thread, and if I did someone please point it out, but I can't take anything I've seen and go to a table and test it out. I have to call Hal Houle, and hope that his phone persona is nicer than his perceived online persona, or travel somewhere to take a lesson that I don't have the time or money or inclination to do without more information.

If Dr. Dave got information from somewhere and published it incorrectly or whatever, then I agree that that probably wasn't right. But based on numerous articles and posts I have to believe that Dr. Dave was just trying to get to the truth and didn't mean to necessarily bash anyone in particular. However, I'm not trying to side with anyone. Simply put - inquiring minds want to know. So if there is some great system or systems out there that simplify aiming, or better yet help even an advanced player judge or nail down those shots that just look weird and install doubt, or certain types of cuts etc., then please share. Make me a believer too!!!

Thanks,
Scott
 
Vinnie said:
I read once that the best way to learn how to aim is to shoot <Dr. Evil's voice> "one million" shots.

1,000,000 shots = 10,000 racks of 10-ball
10,000 racks = 28 racks a day for 365 days (roughly)
28 racks = 3.5 racks per hour in an 8 hour day

So, if you can shoot around 4 racks of 10-ball per hour for 8 hours a day for 1 whole year, you will know how to aim. :grin-square:
Click to expand...

I'm a firm believer in "Feel" aiming and that happens with 1,000,000 shots.

there is a problem if it takes 18 minutes to run a rack of 10 ball as described above, I think 4 hours a day for a year would help anyones game ALOT!!
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Colin: 90/90 won't make every shot on the table. You must also use 90/half, 90/reverse-90, etc. That's only 25% of the system.

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave,
Yes, I remember that being said in the other thread. There are certainly ranges within which the 90/90 and the other methods have higher utility. Obviously, when the CB and OB are very close and a high angle cut is required 90/90 wont work without some major pivot shifting (which would effectively be in front of the bridge).

On very long shots, with thicker contact required, the effective pivot needs to be nearer the butt end of the cue.

Even within useful ranges, there will need to be some variation in the effective pivot distance.

Obviously there is more to these methods than meet the eye via simply plotting the geometry as a fixed bridge pivot. Still, I think, in the interest of understanding these systems, it is necessary to point that out.

One problem for us formula junkies :tongue:, is that the explaination of 'hip pivot' or 'body pivot' is vague in terms of how it could effect the point of the cue's pivot.

I know it has been discussed that there is an apparent change in the perceived CB center as the head shifts, but the geometry of this indicates that it would produce the same effective pivot point for every shot, albeit at a different length than the bridge length.

I still don't think there is anything wrong with saying this system is a ball park method that requires some feel adjustment for higher accuracy. From the occassional statements Stan has made, he seems to be stating something similar.

I just don't think the nature of the pivot can be purely mechanical / systematic (without feel) without it being applied in quite a complex manner.

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