Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

cookie man said:
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!!!!
Click to expand...

No, the problem is Ron wrongly accused Dave of trying to mislead readers for profit and inaccurately described Dave's excellent information as "academic nonsense", all in a mean spirited attempt to tarnish Dave's character and undermine his expertise - something that Dave never tried to do to Ron.

This isn't a technical issue. Ron owes Dave an apology.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
No, the problem is Ron wrongly accused Dave of trying to mislead readers for profit and inaccurately described Dave's excellent information as "academic nonsense", all in a mean spirited attempt to tarnish Dave's character and undermine his expertise - something that Dave never tried to do to Ron.

This isn't a technical issue. Ron owes Dave an apology.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I agree.

The other thing I think many misunderstand is that the first person to whip out the calculator or the graph or the equation generally is NOT the first person introducing MATH to the problem.

Suppose someone claims that regardless of how much change you currently have in your pocket, adding 50 cents to it will leave you with exactly $1.00, Then another person in response takes out a calculator and shows a few counter examples. Who made it a mathematical problem? Its not the second guy, imo.

Similarly, if someone claims there are only three angles on the pool table or that all shots can be made by doing X, Y and Z, then don't blame the person bringing out the equations for bringing math into it. The claim itself is a mathematical statement that formally is either correct or incorrect.

It's neither persuasive nor interesting that you can find people who claim to have done X, Y, and Z and now never miss balls or whatever.
 
VERY long, sorry - lots to say

I know I'm not a favorite of the pool academics on here. I know of one or two that curse my name to whoever will listen (even though I have never done that to them).

Nevertheless, I would LOOOOOOVE to get them all together as a group around a table and have an open discussion.

The aggregate IQ on their side of the table will prob be over 1000 whereas mine is, well, I'm just hair shy of slow. I'd love to have people setup shots so you can see my cue pivot and watch the balls get pushed in. I think I'd open a lot of their eyes - I mean that in a friendly way.

Mike mentioned doubt in there being 3 aims for everything. Ron's system really does simplify everything down to that. I know Ron would love to hip-pivot everything in from everywhere to show everyone. He's really a class-act - giving free phone lessons and whatnot. He does it because he really does want to help people--- and guess what.... he does help people (literally overnight).

Whether it's Ron's system or Hal's center-to-edge, it can be demonstrated in a way where you can learn it and replicate the results. The problem is no one (on the academic side) has really put any effort into learning the systems. LEARNING the system is not hanging on AZB reading aiming threads. Learning the system is getting a face-to-face lesson and applying yourself for a month or two and then report back. When you're proficient with the system you'll better understand what is mechanical and what is feel. If you guys spend your life learning pool the way I do, wouldn't you WANT to know this stuff-- just for completion of your knowledge? People who close their mind make no sense to me.

I first learned center-to-edge a year and a half ago. I first learned Ron's system maybe a 10 months ago. I think the two systems are VERY similar - slightly different pivots, but very similar. When Hal's system first "clicked" with me, I lost sleep for two weeks... no kidding. It was like learning a cheat code for pool. Some of you are giggling reading that sentence, knowing it's true and others are rolling their eyes. If you're rolling your eyes, there's a pie piece missing from your Trivial Pursuit Pool Pie.

Hal told me when he taught me CTE that nobody would believe me if I tried to pass the knowledge forward, so don't try. He's right. Ron has the same dilemma. We can either fight among ourselves over the legitimacy of this information (like fools) or do ourselves a favor and learn more about it. As we say this stuff is baseless, guys like Francisco use it to make everything they shoot at. Tell Bustamante he uses a mathematically-flawed aiming system and he'll smirk and run-out on ya using it.

Sorry for the long post. We're missing the forest for the trees as a group. Thanks Ron for helping my game TREMENDOUSLY.

P.s. Mike, we all miss balls. There's no system for stroking straight, unfortunately. This information just makes you miss way less often. That's all.
 
I wish someone would explain it to me too. Ever since meeting Hal and learning some of the systems he teaches I am completely at a loss to explain how they work. :-)

The best conclusion I can come to is that they force the player to be on the correct line that is necessary to propel the cueball to the right spot to make the object ball.

There is only one approach to any shot that makes the ball. Only one. You can give that line a slight deviation as the pocket is larger than the ball but essentially there is only one line that intersects the other one at the proper place to make the ball.

So my experience with aiming systems is that my ball pocketing is much better, I can control the cue ball much better and I don't know exactly why they work.

But they do and no amount of telling me that I am subconciously adjusting is going to change that. I can't suddenly subconciously decide that I am now going to be able to make shots consistently that I couldn't before.

As for the million balls argument - if you are doing it wrong then there is no indication that you will learn to do it right somewhere in those million balls. Look at it like being a machinist and drilling a million holes. You might use the wrong bit and not even know that a better one exists. You might break bits all the time and think that it's normal and keep drilling with the wrong bit. You are still going to get a million holes drilled but you won't be as good or as efficient as you can be. If someone teaches you a better method by simply giving you a better bit then you don't need to know WHY it's a better bit - it just is and it works.

But if they can tell you why and you can understand it then all the better. Maybe you can then go on and make an even better bit than that because you understand the physical dynamics.

As to this particular situation my take on it is that if Dave used a diagram sent to him by Ron to discredit aiming systems in general then he should have mentioned that the diagram was Ron's and explained whatever Ron was trying to illustrate with it.

The math people know this stuff works - you have got to be able to explain WHY it works. Why can I line up on a ball and pivot away from the line of aim - strike the cueball and it still makes the object ball? It happens and you know it happens so why does it happen?

Instead of tearing down people who are teaching these things why not truly dissect them and figure out mechanically why they work and truly what the limitations are?

After all it wasn't two engineers who flew. It was two bicycle makers.
 
This is Funny

Alright here's my 2cents. I met and paid ron to teach me how to aim. I have only had one lesson and paid for two but have been unable to make the trip to see RON.

However, Ron's technique is easy to understand and will dramatically improve your game. For those who want to question and criticize something they have not tried then let them be.

Ron! who cares! let them talk and do whatever pleases them. They're the ones who hide and pose behind their fake perception that they are great players and well respected.

Ron's techniques will get you the cash and those "mathematical diagrams" are a good way to explain to your friends how you lost the money on top of the light.
 
JB Cases said:
...The math people know this stuff works - you have got to be able to explain WHY it works. Why can I line up on a ball and pivot away from the line of aim - strike the cueball and it still makes the object ball? It happens and you know it happens so why does it happen?
Click to expand...
If you or SpiderWebComm or Cookie Man would describe what you do to line up a shot in as much detail as possible, using either one of Mr. Houle's or Ron V.'s systems, someone might oblige and explain why it works, or can't work as given. (I think you've already been through this, but I wouldn't mind seeing it once again.)

Some of you almost seem to think that there is some sort of vendetta or conspiracy amongst "math people" to disparage these systems. I'm reasonably sure there isn't, and absolutely sure that I'm not a part of it if there is. I would love to learn a better way to aim. It's just that as described thus far, they make absolutely no sense from a geometric point of view. And as such, they're not worth even five minutes of my time at the table....unless there's more to them. I'd be more than willing to believe that there is more to them if someone would just offer up a crumb that is plausible enough to look into further. To my awareness, no one has, as of yet.

Jim
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The aggregate IQ on their side of the table will prob be over 1000 whereas mine is, well, I'm just hair shy of slow.
Click to expand...

Dave,
You lost me there when you started to brag :tongue:

But seriously, this thread is not an argument about how it works or that it works, though that topic is being bought up. This thread is about Ron accusing Dr. Dave of some pretty bad things.

Anyone with sense can see Ron is way out of line in his attacks on Dr. Dave.

At worst I think you could say that Dr. Dave's jocularity was in bad taste and that perhaps he did not represent these systems clearly.

Personally I think that lightening the article with a bit of humor is ok. What goes around comes around. And I think his analysis, of these systems fits pretty much with what has been presented about them geometrically, though it's hard to represent them clearly because it's hard to find any two people who explain them, in detail, the same way.

FWIW, I've tried these systems quite a bit with little success. Perhaps having a table demonstration would help, though I've seen it shot on video. I hope I'm surprised one day to discover how to implement this system with greater accuracy than I currently aim, but I doubt that will ever happen. (Note: I have found CTE aiming has helped me see (feel) the potting line on many cut shots better, but it doesn't take me there, it just seems to help me focus closer to it).

I also doubt a system aimer will ever reach the potting accuracy of a top pro snooker player who doesn't use these systems. With a bit of luck, one day we'll have ourselves a good match up.:D

Colin - Not accepting challenges!

Edit: I know the above challenge wouldn't prove much, but it would be interesting to see.

What would be good to see is a study where 30 students were tested for pocketing ability. Split these up randomly into 3 groups of 10. Have one group learn CTE / 90/90 type systems, another get standard instruction and the other 10 just teach themselves getting the same amount of practice. The results, concerning improvement rates would be very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
Dave,
You lost me there when you started to brag :tongue:

But seriously, this thread is not an argument about how it works or that it works, though that topic is being bought up. This thread is about Ron accusing Dr. Dave of some pretty bad things.

Anyone with sense can see Ron is way out of line in his attacks on Dr. Dave.

At worst I think you could say that Dr. Dave's jocularity was in bad taste and that perhaps he did not represent these systems clearly.

Personally I think that lightening the article with a bit of humor is ok. What goes around comes around. And I think his analysis, of these systems fits pretty much with what has been presented about them geometrically, though it's hard to represent them clearly because it's hard to find any two people who explain them, in detail, the same way.

FWIW, I've tried these systems quite a bit with little success. Perhaps having a table demonstration would help, though I've seen it shot on video. I hope I'm surprised one day to discover how to implement this system with greater accuracy than I currently aim, but I doubt that will ever happen. (Note: I have found CTE aiming has helped me see (feel) the potting line on many cut shots better, but it doesn't take me there, it just seems to help me focus closer to it).

I also doubt a system aimer will ever reach the potting accuracy of a top pro snooker player who doesn't use these systems. With a bit of luck, one day we'll have ourselves a good match up.:D

Colin - Not accepting challenges!

Edit: I know the above challenge wouldn't prove much, but it would be interesting to see.

What would be good to see is a study where 30 students were tested for pocketing ability. Split these up randomly into 3 groups of 10. Have one group learn CTE / 90/90 type systems, another get standard instruction and the other 10 just teach themselves getting the same amount of practice. The results, concerning improvement rates would be very interesting.
Click to expand...

You say that snooker pros don't use aiming systems and I can't disagree with that. However at some point I found on the web something from a former snooker pro who was teaching fractional ball aiming called "covering". This is where the shots were divided into whether they required a quarter ball cover, as defined by the two balls over lapping a quarter of the ball, a half-ball cover and a full ball cover. I have no idea if anyone uses this but there it was being taught by a former snooker pro. The link to this information was lost several hard drive crashes ago.

I agree that there needs to be some kind of videotaped experiment that tackles all of these systems and dissects them.
 
Jal said:
If you or SpiderWebComm or Cookie Man would describe what you do to line up a shot in as much detail as possible, using either one of Mr. Houle's or Ron V.'s systems, someone might oblige and explain why it works, or can't work as given. (I think you've already been through this, but I wouldn't mind seeing it once again.)

Some of you almost seem to think that there is some sort of vendetta or conspiracy amongst "math people" to disparage these systems. I'm reasonably sure there isn't, and absolutely sure that I'm not a part of it if there is. I would love to learn a better way to aim. It's just that as described thus far, they make absolutely no sense from a geometric point of view. And as such, they're not worth even five minutes of my time at the table....unless there's more to them. I'd be more than willing to believe that there is more to them if someone would just offer up a crumb that is plausible enough to look into further. To my awareness, no one has, as of yet.

Jim
Click to expand...

I have put this in print before so I will try again.

Here is one method I use as taught to me by Hal Houle. As I approach the cue ball I divide it into three segments so that there are two lines on the cue ball, one at each third. Then I divide the object ball into two sections with one line in the center.

Then I match the two lines on the cue ball to the center and edge of the object ball. If I am shooting a shot where the object ball should go into a pocket to my right then I match the right line on the cueball to the center of the object ball and the left line on the cueball to the left edge. And reverse it for the other direction. I stand behind the cueball and step into it on the path that these lines form and lay my cuestick down on that path. Then I can pivot for the spin that I want using backhand english and like magic the ball goes in the hole.

It's phrases "like magic" that make the whole thing seem ridiculous. But as I have been using this and a few other methods for years now with good results I have to conclude that they work without understand the real math and geometry behind them.

I have shown them to many people and gotten the same wow reaction.

Does anyone know that trick where you line up a 90 degree cut shot with the object ball along the rail and before you pull the trigger you close one eye? Most people can't get close to making this shot with two eyes open but when they close one eye it magically goes in?

I wouldn't rule out that these aiming systems somehow help you to get to the right line by way of optical illusion so that your brain is forced to disengage from the way you were aiming and is forced onto the right line.

I really have no clue. All I know is that it works. I also know that Hal Houle and Ron Vitello and others have repeatedly posted here that all they require is a phone call and they will explain what they do.

I don't know if anyone of the skeptics has given Hal a call and documented what they heard. I don't know if they took this information and tried to understand it or debunk using math or video or geometry. I think that if I were Dr Dave then I would be hunting down all these people with aiming systems, center to edge, aim by the numbers, aim with lights, don't go in the light, etc.... and documenting them on video. Then armed with the information straight from the horse's mouth complete with physical demonstrations they could explain the math or the myth.

There are people here who are WELL RESPECTED for their intelligence and generally peaceful demeanor who know a lot about this and who know that some of these systems really work. Fred Agnir is one of them.

One year at Valley Forge about 8-10 years ago Fred spent an hour or so showing off various systems he had gotten from phone conversations with Hal. As we were there at the table I will NEVER forget some old man saying that he had learned similar methods as a young man when he was learning to play.

There has got to be a logical and rational and geometric reason why this stuff works. Sorry, there are too many people who use them from beginners to decent players, to say that they don't.

I know that Dave is interested in seeing why they work or why they don't. He has access to the video equipment, he has access to people with superior skills who also understand the physical things. He also has access to a whole campus full of raw beginners to do plenty of experiments on whether a "system" can help a beginner to make shots that are technically beyond their level.
 
JB Cases said:
You say that snooker pros don't use aiming systems and I can't disagree with that. However at some point I found on the web something from a former snooker pro who was teaching fractional ball aiming called "covering". This is where the shots were divided into whether they required a quarter ball cover, as defined by the two balls over lapping a quarter of the ball, a half-ball cover and a full ball cover. I have no idea if anyone uses this but there it was being taught by a former snooker pro. The link to this information was lost several hard drive crashes ago.

I agree that there needs to be some kind of videotaped experiment that tackles all of these systems and dissects them.
Click to expand...

JB,
The full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 and fine cut overlap advice is quite common in snooker, though I haven't seen it described in much more detail than that. It seems more like a perception guidline, ball park guideline than a fractional aiming system the way I've seen and read it being explained. Steve Davis talked a little about this in an old instructional tape that I've long ago lost.

I would say overlap is about the closest method to the way I aim most shots, though it is not my ownly crutch. If I play for many hours for several days I just tend to see the OB into the pocket on most shots. I expect different people have different perceptions when they are seeing the angles. I tend to think that guys who play a lot and especially guys who play a lot under conditions requiring high accuracy, just start seeing angles. When they move their bridge or change their intended stroke, they can perceive the OB changing angle.

Colin
 
I read the article by Dr D, and I am not sure he was referring to Ron. I have never seen Ron advertise the aiming system he teaches. Ron does not claim to have invented this system. He just offers to teach it. I have read here on az's forum that Ron has spend hours on the phone with people explaining this system FOR FREE.
If you go a pool hall with Ron he charges you for his time. He does not solicit these lessons. People call him. I would think his time is worth the money.
There are some teaching pros who advertise that if you come to their program they will for the cost of the program teach you the 'secret aiming' system of the pros.
If you go to Randyg's pool school he ends the program by asking the students if they would like to learn the SAM aiming system. This is a nice extra he adds if the students are interested. He does not charge extra for the system. It is a supplemental aiming method. Very easy to learn. He does not claim this at some hidden secret you must buy from him like some other people. If you ever get a chance to go to his school, and I would highly recommend this, you will learn many great things. The sam system is just a nice little extra.
By the way, Scott Lee has a standing offer. If you take a lesson from him and don't feel it is worth it he won't charge you. You can't beat that. But, I could not imagine anyone not enjoying a lesson with Scott. Great teacher, nice guy.
 
JB Cases said:
I have put this in print before so I will try again.

Here is one method I use as taught to me by Hal Houle. As I approach the cue ball I divide it into three segments so that there are two lines on the cue ball, one at each third. Then I divide the object ball into two sections with one line in the center.

Then I match the two lines on the cue ball to the center and edge of the object ball. If I am shooting a shot where the object ball should go into a pocket to my right then I match the right line on the cueball to the center of the object ball and the left line on the cueball to the left edge. And reverse it for the other direction. I stand behind the cueball and step into it on the path that these lines form and lay my cuestick down on that path. Then I can pivot for the spin that I want using backhand english and like magic the ball goes in the hole.

It's phrases "like magic" that make the whole thing seem ridiculous. But as I have been using this and a few other methods for years now with good results I have to conclude that they work without understand the real math and geometry behind them.[...]
Click to expand...

Similar to the kind of stuff I discuss from 2:30 on in this video, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2_b2NpvnM

Here's a disconnect John. Suppose I watch you doing your three-angle stuff and firing balls in all over the place. And suppose I go to Spiderman's house and watch him not miss a ball for an hour pivoting from edge to center or whatever. Those demonstrations don't mean squat to me.

I have played you -- both before and after you were born again, and I know well that you have good precision to your aim. You have a repeatable stroke. I'm also aware that often someone with a good precise repeatable stroke will systematically miss certain kinds of shots due to some perception problem. If that is the case, then you are like Dorothy in the land of OZ wanting to get back to Kansas. You have the power to do it all along, but you just don't know it. For someone in those shoes, just having them change the nature of how they approach the perception of the shot may help a lot.

As I've said before, focusing on center-to-edge or edge-to-wherever gets your site line parallel to your stick. This could be a key for you to unlock the aim you really already have.

Or perhaps focusing on a shot from the edge of the cueball and pivoting toward the center--like being discussed here--locks a person into an eye dominance that is different from what he would have done going straight down into the shot and gives him a perspective that works better for him.

My point is if these sorts of advice help certain people under certain circumstances pocket balls, then that's great. But it is very different from the aiming system "working." These people are actually finding their own aim; they're just approaching their own aim from a different angle.

Whether an aiming system "works" to get a person to the right aim is something that is obscured and not helped by getting to the table. The "right aim" is well defined. And whether a sequence of steps does or doesn't get you to that aim is something to be analyzed with logic, not something to be demonstrated at the table. Using the fact Dorothy got back to Kansas and the Tin Man got a heart and the Scarecrow got a brain as evidence of the power of the wizard is unreasonable, imo.
 
JB Cases said:
...Here is one method I use as taught to me by Hal Houle. As I approach the cue ball I divide it into three segments so that there are two lines on the cue ball, one at each third. Then I divide the object ball into two sections with one line in the center.

Then I match the two lines on the cue ball to the center and edge of the object ball. If I am shooting a shot where the object ball should go into a pocket to my right then I match the right line on the cueball to the center of the object ball and the left line on the cueball to the left edge. And reverse it for the other direction. I stand behind the cueball and step into it on the path that these lines form and lay my cuestick down on that path. Then I can pivot for the spin that I want using backhand english and like magic the ball goes in the hole.
Click to expand...
I really appreciate you're giving it another try.

I'm not clear on what you mean by matching up those lines. That is, the cueball is divided into thirds while the object ball is divided in two. The distance between the two lines on the cueball is 2/3'rds of its diameter while the distance between the center of the object ball to its edge is 1/2 of its diameter. If you project lines from the lines on the cueball to the center and edge of the object ball, these lines converge at some distance point. In other words, they do not run parallel to each other and define two different directions.

So, if you're going to shoot without any side english in your example (cut to the right), what does "matching up" mean? Do you line up such that you're aiming the right line on the cueball to the center of the object ball? Or are you aiming the left line on the cueball to the left edge of the object ball? Or, are you blending them in some way? If you are blending them, it's crucial to know how you're doing it if the geometry is to be reasoned out. (I realize that you pivot back to center ball when all is said and done.)

Jim
 
mikepage said:
Similar to the kind of stuff I discuss from 2:30 on in this video, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2_b2NpvnM

Here's a disconnect John. Suppose I watch you doing your three-angle stuff and firing balls in all over the place. And suppose I go to Spiderman's house and watch him not miss a ball for an hour pivoting from edge to center or whatever. Those demonstrations don't mean squat to me.

I have played you -- both before and after you were born again, and I know well that you have good precision to your aim. You have a repeatable stroke. I'm also aware that often someone with a good precise repeatable stroke will systematically miss certain kinds of shots due to some perception problem. If that is the case, then you are like Dorothy in the land of OZ wanting to get back to Kansas. You have the power to do it all along, but you just don't know it. For someone in those shoes, just having them change the nature of how they approach the perception of the shot may help a lot.

As I've said before, focusing on center-to-edge or edge-to-wherever gets your site line parallel to your stick. This could be a key for you to unlock the aim you really already have.

Or perhaps focusing on a shot from the edge of the cueball and pivoting toward the center--like being discussed here--locks a person into an eye dominance that is different from what he would have done going straight down into the shot and gives him a perspective that works better for him.

My point is if these sorts of advice help certain people under certain circumstances pocket balls, then that's great. But it is very different from the aiming system "working." These people are actually finding their own aim; they're just approaching their own aim from a different angle.

Whether an aiming system "works" to get a person to the right aim is something that is obscured and not helped by getting to the table. The "right aim" is well defined. And whether a sequence of steps does or doesn't get you to that aim is something to be analyzed with logic, not something to be demonstrated at the table. Using the fact Dorothy got back to Kansas and the Tin Man got a heart and the Scarecrow got a brain as evidence of the power of the wizard is unreasonable, imo.
Click to expand...
Very well explained Mike!!! That is exactly how I feel.

It is my experience with CTE aiming that it has helped me develop my perspective. This may simply be because my aiming previous to this was not particularly systematic.

I think it's true that a very experience player does not necessarily see the aim angles any better than a relatively new enthusiast. We get by more on positional and planning knowledge. I have days, or starts, where I can't see where my cue is pointing until my eye 'gets in'. But I'll still be tricky to beat for a decent shooter without game and positional knowledge.

The point being, that maybe CTE and other point to point systems are advantageous over ghost ball, contact point, overlap or other hard to see aiming methods, and this is what allows their proponents to get their eye in and keep their eye in much more regularly.

Colin
 
There has got to be a logical and rational and geometric reason why this stuff works.
Click to expand...

There is a logical and rational reason this stuff works: adjustment.

If there's a "geometric reason", then it can be shown with geometry. This is a free and open forum, so anybody is welcome to show it.

Sorry, there are too many people who use them from beginners to decent players, to say that they don't.
Click to expand...

The success of many is only proof that they can make these systems work for themselves. It says nothing about how they do that. (And, by the way, many play very well without them.)

Geometry shows what can't be true about the systems and logic suggests what probably is true about them. System users tend to be unversed in these areas, so communication can be difficult.

pj
chgo
 
mikepage said:
...you are like Dorothy in the land of OZ wanting to get back to Kansas. You have the power to do it all along, but you just don't know it.
...Using the fact Dorothy got back to Kansas and the Tin Man got a heart and the Scarecrow got a brain as evidence of the power of the wizard is unreasonable, imo.
Click to expand...

Another eye-opening analogy from the Wizard of "Aha!"s.


Ruby Slippers Systems

slippers.jpg

Brought to you by The Men Behind the Curtains

wizard.jpg

pj
chgo
 
Jal,
The system has been written and explained on here many times and you can't get it without being at a table. It is no secret, it is face to face instruction with positive results in the end. So all you nay sayers and cheap ass pool players that want everything for free.....Cet off your sorry asses and go to NY and have a lesson with Ron. Spend a few bucks for something that will change your pool life or shut up! Nuf said! Terry
 
My head is swimming. I guess I'll just shoot pool and keep cool.

Dave Nelson

Still a sub-banger trying to become a banger.
 
exact numbers for inexact techniques

The biggest issue I see causing a lot of headache and heartache is that the math guys try to take things literally and apply these numbers to a diagram or formulat and prove something doesn't work.

I watched a solid player using one aiming system and then they played with Ron's a little. I had copied a post from here on AZB explaining it and he worked off of that quite successfully. However, one thing I noticed was that with his perception, his shaft, and his bridge, what he felt was a 90-90 line was more like 80-80 from my point of view watching him. That wasn't relevent to the fact that he found the starting point for himself that let him pocket balls consistently.

I think we need to look at the general concepts and try to work out the actual numbers and placements for ourselves. Our equipment and our perceptions may be different from the originator's of the concept, and their actual numbers might be just their best effort to describe something they haven't precisely measured themselves.

To sum things up, to fairly evaluate any system we have to get past not only our perceptions but often the perceptions or efforts to be made understandable of the originator.

Hu
 
The biggest issue I see causing a lot of headache and heartache is that the math guys try to take things literally and apply these numbers to a diagram or formulat and prove something doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I see it differently (surprise).

I see system users being overly defensive about the fact that their systems must involve some "personal input", which they think means they "don't work". The "controversy" is mostly simple misunderstanding on the part of system users about what the "geometry (not math) guys" are saying and what it means about their systems.

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