Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

[Patrick Johnson]

These kinds of systems demand a certain amount of 'faith' and belief that they will work.

I believe they can be used by players who don't have or need "faith" in them but simply understand what they do and what the player adds to them. I think the real difference is that "overanalytical types" generally consider them an option, while to "underanalytical types" they're a necessity.

pj
chgo

 

[Justlovecues]

In short... there's a LOT we don't know that we're learning together. Let's stop the infighting and figure out the what works, what doesn't, and the adjustments. Some of the best players use this stuff - are they stupid or are we?

Spider is right when he mentions there is to much infighting on what works or doesn't. To me, what works for the individual is whats most important. Ron Vitello happens to be one of 2 coaches which I have. His method has worked nothing but miracles for what little game I have. Ron is also one of the few people I have met in the 'pool world' who you can call at anytime for advise. He has always been there for me and many others. As for aiming systems, whatever can get the silly balls in those darn pockets for you is whats best.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

After playing for many years (aiming/sighting by feel), I plateaued. No matter how hard/long I played, I couldn't improve. I broke my plateau within 6 months of using these systems and have been improving ever since. I'm now very consistent as opposed to strong one day, mediocre the next.

I don't think it's a necessity - every system is optional. They're tools for improvement for some and a way of playing for others. For me, it started as a tool for improvement and is now the way I look at every shot.

They won't make you a player overnight, that's for sure. I just think they're the shortest way to play better - if applied correctly. Pivot systems are like those stereogram pictures....the kind where you have to look "beyond" the pic to see the image. Some people see "it" right away and others need more time. However, when you do see "it", "it" changes the way you look at pool forever.

I'm not sure if I like the word faith - but I know what Scott meant. Someone could spend an hour to show you the ins and outs of this information and you will not become a machine within the next hour. With the exception of a select few people, no one learns this stuff and immediately plays better than they do traditionally (before the lesson). Many play worse when they FIRST learn it because they're not used to pivoting at all. Therefore, they are let down and quit. I think Scott meant "faith" as in sticking with it - knowing "IT" will come. When you see "it," it's a scary feeling. It kept me awake for nearly two weeks. I couldn't sleep.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[dr_dave]

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Ditto!

I finally have some spare time, and a totally full stomach, so I hope to go back through and reply to more of the comments and questions in the thread that haven't been addressed already.

Regards,
Dave

PS: I am thankful that there are so many enthusiastic and knowledgeable people on this forum!

 

[dr_dave]

postivies of "aiming systems"

... 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.
...

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

Mike and Colin,

Excellent summaries of some of the positives of some "aiming systems!"

Here is a similar statement I have written before on this topic:

Any "system" that forces a person to focus on aim and alignment consistently and with concentration will be beneficial to many people, especially people who currently don't focus well or long enough.​

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

At least look at the diagrams

I've avoided this thread, but decided to answer anyway after five pages. That's how I roll.

I have a few things to say that hopefully won't add or detract from the overall lovefest of aiming.

- Anyone who says "I read this whole thread" is a liar.

It took a while, but I did read the entire thread, and I am not a liar (except when I play poker). Now I am going back through the thread to respond to some of the better comments and unanswered questions.

I skimmed it. I didnt' bother digesting half of what anyone wrote. I didn't read Dr. Dave's article. I didn't read Ron V.'s thread starter.

Why would you not read this stuff if you have even a remote interest in this thread? I read your articles in Inside Pool even though I have little interest in the custom cue industry. If you don't read my articles, at least look at the diagrams (e.g., Diagrams 1 and 2 in my November '08 article, and Diagram 4 in my December '08 article). The diagrams might not explain why some aiming systems work or not, but they do illustrate some important concepts related to many "aiming systems."

I've said this before, and it seems like some people are trying to say it... but, I would rather that the math points out and focuses on where these systems work. They obviously work. Pointing out that "they can't possibly work in all situations" IMO is an utter waste of time. Use the math to show where it works, where it's close, and then where it's way off. I know some will think that's been done, but it hasn't. Let's be honest. It hasn't.

I would love to do this more than I have, but it is not possible based on everything I have heard, read, and tried. The systems just don't work as advertised (for me and many others with a wide range of abilities), so I can't possibly explain why they should work for a wide range of shots. Now, I have done some analysis (summarized in my November '08 article) that shows that a system with a limited number of aiming lines can be effective for short shots. Also, Diagram 2 in my November '08 article shows how a single line of aim can work for certain shots where the cut angle and ball distances are different. I actually thought this was a fairly surprising result when I first constructed the diagram (i.e., I didn't necessarily expect it). Many other positives of the "aiming systems" have also been summarized in this and previous threads on these topics. Some are summarized in the 2nd Q&A here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#aiming​

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Why don't you and the match guys choose ONE SHOT and detail it on cuetable.com and let Spidie go to the table video tape the shot at several angles and let him make the object ball a few times in a row using a particular aiming method and perhaps he will be able to detail exactly how he made the shot for you. Spidie can upload it to youtube and we can all enjoy the discussion.

I know you will be fair in your reply to him and while you will only be giving your perspective about what is taking place, it will be respected and considered for fair dinkum discussion.

Joey,

I think this is a great idea. What I would love to see is a video (preferably with an over-head view) that describes in detail and shows how the line of aim and pivot changes for a set of 5 or more equally spaced shots between the "A" and "B" positions in both Diagrams 1 and 2 here. If somebody wants to diagram each of the shots in CueTable first, that's fine, but my diagrams should be sufficient.

I promise to respond and ask questions in a respectable way after the video is posted.

Good idea, and thank you,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

throw-adjusted ghost ball

Dave introduced a concept called Contact Induced Throw meaning that when a ball is struck the cueball will carry the object ball forward in the same direction with it before the balls release and each go in different directions.

Just to be clear, I did not "introduce" this concept; although, I have done lots of analysis, experiments, videos, and articles on this and related topics.

So before the idea with Ghost Ball was to visualize an imaginary ball on the pocket line and shoot the cueball to that ball. Or go further and visualize a contact point created by that imaginary ball and try to hit that contact point.

Then we are told that we must now compensate for deflection and aim "a little to the right or left of this contact point" so that the cueball will arrive at the right point.

NOW - we are told that to use Ghost Ball properly we much compensate for Contact Induced Throw and Deflection.

All this compensating is supposed to be achieved HOW?

In the "beginner's version" of ghost-ball (GB) aiming, throw is not considered. In more advanced GB aiming, the GB position is the exact position the CB must be at contact with the OB (adjusted for cut- or spin-induced throw) that will send the OB into the heart of the desired pocket.

Colin and others have suggested methods to help one adjust for squirt, swerve, and throw. The required GB position is affected only by throw. The path of the CB to the GB is affected by both squirt and swerve. I suspect many top players can compensate for all of this stuff mostly intuitively (i.e., by "feel") because they have had lots of "successful experience" and lots of quality "table time." For people not so good at compensating for these factors, I and others have some suggestions and useful info here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#compensation​

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Pool is hard and interesting

... Dave's videos show us what happens and frankly some of the results are very surprising even to him. I am POSITIVE that some of the things that have been shown on video defy conventional wisdom of what is happening. Dave please correct me if you have never been surprised by the difference in what you thought would happen vs. what did happen when you filmed something on a pool table. ...

Pool understanding and "science" are fascinating to me exactly for the reason you mention. There are always new things to learn, and there are often surprises. For example, when working with Tom Ross, Bob Jewett, and others, and when reading posts on the online forums, I am often surprised by the many different ways of looking at things. I have also been surprised in the past by how well some experiments (e.g., with throw and squirt) have backed up the sometimes-over-simplified theory. I was also mildly surprised recently by some of the conclusions associated with Diagram 2 in my November '08 article (see the middle of the paragraph describing Diagram 2 in the article).

I think the reason why nerdy math-science-physics-engineer type people often like pool so much is because there is so much interesting stuff to learn and understand about all of the subtleties of the game. And when some of this understanding actually helps one be more successful at the table, that's just "icing on the cake."

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

... What are "quiet eyes"?

There have been studies on this, and it has been discussed on the forums before. "Quiet eyes" refers to focusing on a target with still eyes for a period of time. Studies have shown that top athletes in many sport activities (e.g., golf putting and basketball free-throws) do this. When the eyes are moving and/or are not focused long enough on a well-defined target point, line, or area, performance has been shown to be not as good.

... How do you suppose that a beginner can intuitively adjust for squirt, swerve and deflection, when they barely know what those things are?

First of all, a beginner probably shouldn't be using much English. If they don't, they won't need to compensate for squirt and swerve. Now, when they first start using English, they will probably miss more shots then they think they should because they don't know what is going on with squirt/swerve/throw and because they don't have enough experience/intuition/feel to be able to compensate (consciously or not).

... If you give a beginner an aiming system and he begins to pocket shots that are technically far above his level then you can't really say that this player is automatically adjusting for things he knows nothing of.

If a beginner has trouble aiming and focusing on a shot, and an aiming system helps that person improve without knowing why, then the system is helping the person "adjust" automatically. Now, whether or not the aiming system is helping the person adjust for squirt/swerve/throw is another matter.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the points of your questions. It wasn't totally clear to me.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

Feedback from 90/90 users please.

Along the lines of what Joey proposed I have set up a test in the diagram below.

Not really so much a test, but a method to get some feedback from 90/90 users to see if these shots give them some insights into how they adjust the pivot and bridge to make these shots.

The long shot is similar to the one Spidey performed on video. Tracking the cue we could see the effective pivot was 10 or so inches back from his bridge so the top of the bridge shifted left several mm. This is about what we would expect for a longish straightish shot as seen in the diagram below.

For the shorter shot with higher cut angle, the required pivot should be shorter than the actual bridge length, so I'd expect the player (if right handed) to have to shift the bridge a couple of mm right.

I think it is pretty well proven that the upper bridge needs to shift (the base may stay in the same place) according to various lengths of shot and cut angles. These will also change according to the bridge length a player uses. The question for me has always been HOW this bridge shift/pivot adjustment is executed by the player. My guess has been that it is by feel.

Anyway, please try these shots a few times and take note of the upper bridge shift and the effective pivot if you can and let me know your thoughts. A video showing the cue and bridge from behind would be of great use if anyone could produce one.

Perhaps it is because I pivot so often using BHE that I am highly sensitive to bridge movement and the pivot length. For others, I suspect they can pivot to where they see the line with some slight lateral bridge movement and not be aware of it. Hence their using feel to get to the line they see without realizing it. That's my theory for now anyway

Colin

 

[Cornerman]

Why would you not read this stuff if you have even a remote interest in this thread? I read your articles in Inside Pool even though I have little interest in the custom cue industry.

Oh, take it easy Dave. I'm one of the few people that will actually be honest about skimming this particular thread. I have little interest in this particular thread because I've already had my fill of discussing aiming systems long before you or Ron V. graced us with your presence.

By all means, carry on. I have absolutely nothing additional to contribute to this thread since it's a rehash of every other aiming thread that I can remember. Even when someone says something like "good point, Joe, I never thought of that." Well, guess what? Whatever it is, it's been thought of and posted (as far as questions, revelations and pseudo answers on aiming systems).

And no, I don't believe you've read everything. It's impossible.

Fred

 

[Flex]

Dave...There aren't any...and they wouldn't help, even if there were. Systems like CTE, Ron V's hip pivot, and SAM use processes that must be demonstrated at the table to the student, for a clear understanding...and even then some folks can't "get it". These kinds of systems demand a certain amount of 'faith' and belief that they will work. Overanalytical types (i.e.: A 27 degree angle cannot be the same aim as a 33 degree angle...hint: yes they can!) usually cannot 'let go' enough to benefit from using them. The main thing, is that many types of aiming methods are best demonstrated at the table, by a qualified teacher, than trying to learn them out of a book or video (when they are available).

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Thank for the very helpful post, Scott.

Actually, just reading about Ron V's system and watching Spider's videos set me on the path to figuring out an aiming system that is similar to the one Spider and Ron V talk about, and yes, it does require "faith" at least in the beginning. However, the hip pivot thing works, for me at least, on certain shots, whereas on shots varying from 3 inches from the cue ball to the object ball, up to a cue ball to object ball distance of say, 24 inches or so, there is an actual pivot point that pivots in the bridge at a distance very roughly equal to the distance from the cue ball to object ball. It varies depending on the cut angle too, which I guesstimate based using the length of the cue to help determine the angle. Does it work? Quite well. When do I use it? Whenever I have any doubt about how to shoot a cut shot. What are it's weaknesses? Well, I suppose the angle estimation is an area for error, plus the pivot length/bridge length is another, and of course the stroke is a primary area for mischief. All that said, the "system" works pretty well. Could I reduce it to written form? That would be rather difficult, and if it were to be done, I've no doubt that umpteen naysayers would nitpick me to death for daring to enter this rarified field. Nevertheless, it does work. I've also figured out how to vary the aim depending on the "kind" of stroke being applied. "Kind" in this sense meaning speed of stroke and height of bridge. Complicated? You bet. Worth the trouble? Absolutely.

Flex

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't believe you've read everything. It's impossible.

??

It's clearly not impossible to have read this whole thread - it's no longer than a short story. I've read all but little bits of it.

It's very difficult to read the whole thing because, as you said, it's another rehash of the same old same old, and it's filled with the same old misunderstandings.

pj
chgo

 

[BigDogatLarge]

Ok, I read as much as I could and you guys have me confused as hell. I use Tom Simpsons method, I connect the dots, if I find my contact point and keep on it, I don't miss so much. If any of you guys are going to be at DCC, would you be so kind as to show me what the hell you are talking about? I just want to be able to play to make myself better. I don't gamble or play for blood, I just want to beat the table. Thank you in advance.

Dwight

 

[dr_dave]

is the "magic" in the bridge "adjustment"?

... I think my point with Ron's system or CTE, is I don't visualize the angle or the line of aim. Neither. I "see" an initial sight-line and then pivot to the "line of actual aim."

I used to say that Ron's system and CTE required zero perception - you aim a definitive point on the CB to a definitive point on the OB, pivot, and make the ball. However, in fairness I've found that some people can't "see" the correct sight line, whether it be 90/90 or CTE...whatever. ...

Even if your initial alignment and line of sight are perfect, the key appears to be the "pivot." As shown in your previously-posted video and Colin's animation of frames from your video, you obviously shift your bridge a small but critical amount to create the required final "line of aim." If you didn't adjust your bridge during the pivot (and Ron has suggested you should not), and if you didn't adjust by the exact right amount, you would miss the shot. I think you have a great feel for how much to adjust for different shots because you are a good shooter and you know when the aim is good or not (with or without any "system"). I hope you don't take any offense at my remarks. Colin, Patrick, Mike, others and I are just trying to come up with reasonable explanations for why the systems might work. As the diagrams in my articles show, the pivot-based systems will not work for a wide range of shots if the bridge is fixed during the "pivot" step (i.e., if the cue "pivots" about the bridge point), or if you don't use different bridge lengths for different shots.

Respectfully,
Dave

 

[JoeyA]

Along the lines of what Joey proposed I have set up a test in the diagram below.

Not really so much a test, but a method to get some feedback from 90/90 users to see if these shots give them some insights into how they adjust the pivot and bridge to make these shots.

The long shot is similar to the one Spidey performed on video. Tracking the cue we could see the effective pivot was 10 or so inches back from his bridge so the top of the bridge shifted left several mm. This is about what we would expect for a longish straightish shot as seen in the diagram below.

For the shorter shot with higher cut angle, the required pivot should be shorter than the actual bridge length, so I'd expect the player (if right handed) to have to shift the bridge a couple of mm right.

I think it is pretty well proven that the upper bridge needs to shift (the base may stay in the same place) according to various lengths of shot and cut angles. These will also change according to the bridge length a player uses. The question for me has always been HOW this bridge shift/pivot adjustment is executed by the player. My guess has been that it is by feel.

Anyway, please try these shots a few times and take note of the upper bridge shift and the effective pivot if you can and let me know your thoughts. A video showing the cue and bridge from behind would be of great use if anyone could produce one.

Perhaps it is because I pivot so often using BHE that I am highly sensitive to bridge movement and the pivot length. For others, I suspect they can pivot to where they see the line with some slight lateral bridge movement and not be aware of it. Hence their using feel to get to the line they see without realizing it. That's my theory for now anyway

Colin

Good lord, Colin. You're still using the RSB table?

I hope Spidey will print out your two shots and then shoot them on video for everyone to discuss. Since I am right handed, I would probably line up Center to Edge coming in from the left side of the object ball instead of the right as indicated in your long shot. For the short shot I would probably do it as indicated although I can normally accomplish the same thing from either CTE.

Thanks for posting the two shots. Now I'm going to go see if I can make either one of them with a manual pivot. :grin:

JoeyA

 

[dr_dave]

I have absolutely nothing additional to contribute to this thread since it's a rehash of every other aiming thread that I can remember.

I agree there is much rehash of old arguments, anecdotes, and defenesive responses in this thread, but I think the recent videos (by RonV, SpiderWebComm, MikePage), animations (from Colin), and diagrams (from Patrick, me, and others) are helping to refine the debate. I know not all people agree, but I think we are getting closer to explaining how pivot-based cut-shot aiming systems might work. I think it is already obvious when they don't work. I hope you will reconsider your decision to not contribute further because I think your input would be appreciated and useful.

...And no, I don't believe you've read everything. It's impossible.

I don't know what you mean here. I have read this entire thread up to this point ... every word! Why do you think this is impossible, and why would you accuse me of lying? Or were you implying something else?

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Good lord, Colin. You're still using the RSB table?

I hope Spidey will print out your two shots and then shoot them on video for everyone to discuss. Since I am right handed, I would probably line up Center to Edge coming in from the left side of the object ball instead of the right as indicated in your long shot. For the short shot I would probably do it as indicated although I can normally accomplish the same thing from either CTE.

Thanks for posting the two shots. Now I'm going to go see if I can make either one of them with a manual pivot. :grin:

JoeyA

I hope Spidey and/or others will also try and/or record video for the shots I recommended. I think we need to see how the alignment and pivot change as shots are varied small amounts. Here is what I asked for:

What I would love to see is a video (preferably with an over-head view) that describes in detail and shows how the line of aim and pivot change for a set of 5 or more equally spaced shots between the "A" and "B" positions in both Diagrams 1 and 2 here.
​

Thanks,
Dave

 

[JoeyA]

Even if your initial alignment and line of sight are perfect, the key appears to be the "pivot." As shown in your previously-posted video and Colin's animation of frames from your video, you obviously shift your bridge a small but critical amount to create the required final "line of aim." If you didn't adjust your bridge during the pivot (and Ron has suggested you should not), and if you didn't adjust by the exact right amount, you would miss the shot. I think you have a great feel for how much to adjust for different shots because you are a good shooter and you know when the aim is good or not (with or without any "system"). I hope you don't take any offense at my remarks. Colin, Patrick, Mike, others and I are just trying to come up with reasonable explanations for why the systems might work. As the diagrams in my articles show, the pivot-based systems will not work for a wide range of shots if the bridge is fixed during the "pivot" step (i.e., if the cue "pivots" about the bridge point), or if you don't use different bridge lengths for different shots.

Respectfully,
Dave

Often times, I believe that when an aiming system shooter lines up Center to EDge and pivots to the center of the cue ball, they do indeed know if they are "locked on" to the correct shot and they shoot it with confidence. When the shot doesn't look right, the shooter will get up and adjust or attempt to make an adjustment while down because they apparently don't have the correct sight picture. The aiming systems get many people in the ball park (need adjustment) and sometimes gets them locked on to the precise and correct shot alignment (no intiuitive adjustment needed). Like Donny Mills once mentioned, if you are off on the shot, you can adjust a teeny-weeny bit to make the shot (or something to that effect).

JoeyA