dr_dave said:
Ron's technique is far better than mine. Specifics should be directed at him. I'll make your shots with RonV's system and CTE.
Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.
- Thread starter RonV
- Start date
Ron's technique is far better than mine. Specifics should be directed at him. I'll make your shots with RonV's system and CTE.
OK. Let's also try not to let ourselves be antagonized by each other. For instance, when I say something is physically impossible, you might try to put some effort into understanding what I mean - as I and others have done for you. This is a two-way street.
pj
chgo
P.S. Sorry for the "let's hear it" post - that was curt.
Wow ... PJ and Spidey being nice to each other! :thumbup: This is truly is a time for thanksgivings! If we were all in the same room together, I would recommend a "group hug."Patrick Johnson said:
Seriously though, I actually believe there is hope for this "aiming system" thread to actually lead to some useful information and advice. I don't think I have had this hope in the past.
Regards,
Dave
Many of us do, but Scott won't sell any lessons by admitting that.
pj
chgo
Dr Dave quoting AV84fun
If this is correct the answer to the various CTE systems has been staring us all in the face.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#SAM
(included text from his CTE section)
3. Land on the table with your bridge hand short of your normal bridge length with a certain spot on your bridge hand** directly on top of the CTE line.
** That spot is normally the inverted ^ formed by the index finger of the closed bridge or the center of the thumb pad of the open bridge. But bridge configurations vary and it is CRUCIAL to locate the correct spot for each player. See my "string experiment" to find the correct spot.
(end included text)
Looks to me like here is the "magical" pivot point not being at the physical spot the pivot takes place at spelled out quite clearly.
Originally this spot on a person's hand is the reference point on the CTE line. However, before the shot the stick is pivoted and the point of reference at our hand is our bridge. Anyone assuming that the pivot point can't be further back than the bridge is wrong, simply because they are assuming that there is only one reference point on the hand, the physical bridge. With two reference points on the hand then it becomes impossible for the theoretical pivot point to not be at a different location than the physical bridge. Once the original reference point is not actually somewhere on the stick, it is quite possible for the geometric pivot point to not even be anywhere on the physical cue stick.
If I am reading what AV84fun is saying correctly, all of the fussing and fighting has been over terminology and people assuming they understood what the other person meant by their own understanding of the words used.
I am now ready to agree that (A) the geometric pivot point can be wherever the shooter chooses it to be without ever moving any part of their hand, and (B) there is absolutely no reason that pivot systems can't work for any shot although this may require slight variations in the system as has pretty much always been stated. However these adjustments do not require the movement of the bridge hand, top, base, or anywhere in between other than splitting hairs over the slight realignment due to the shaft going through the bridge at a different angle.
Hu
If this is correct the answer to the various CTE systems has been staring us all in the face.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#SAM
(included text from his CTE section)
3. Land on the table with your bridge hand short of your normal bridge length with a certain spot on your bridge hand** directly on top of the CTE line.
** That spot is normally the inverted ^ formed by the index finger of the closed bridge or the center of the thumb pad of the open bridge. But bridge configurations vary and it is CRUCIAL to locate the correct spot for each player. See my "string experiment" to find the correct spot.
(end included text)
Looks to me like here is the "magical" pivot point not being at the physical spot the pivot takes place at spelled out quite clearly.
Originally this spot on a person's hand is the reference point on the CTE line. However, before the shot the stick is pivoted and the point of reference at our hand is our bridge. Anyone assuming that the pivot point can't be further back than the bridge is wrong, simply because they are assuming that there is only one reference point on the hand, the physical bridge. With two reference points on the hand then it becomes impossible for the theoretical pivot point to not be at a different location than the physical bridge. Once the original reference point is not actually somewhere on the stick, it is quite possible for the geometric pivot point to not even be anywhere on the physical cue stick.
If I am reading what AV84fun is saying correctly, all of the fussing and fighting has been over terminology and people assuming they understood what the other person meant by their own understanding of the words used.
I am now ready to agree that (A) the geometric pivot point can be wherever the shooter chooses it to be without ever moving any part of their hand, and (B) there is absolutely no reason that pivot systems can't work for any shot although this may require slight variations in the system as has pretty much always been stated. However these adjustments do not require the movement of the bridge hand, top, base, or anywhere in between other than splitting hairs over the slight realignment due to the shaft going through the bridge at a different angle.
Hu
SpiderWebComm said:
If there's a misconception, it's because we're not communicating well.
If you start with a certain stick orientation and then pivot about a fixed well-defined point until the stick is pointing to the center of the ball, there is only one possible result, right? Under these circumstances, there is only one ball center, right?
I assume you will agree with this. If you don't, then the initial focus of our discussion can be very narrow. We don't need to talk about skin or hips or tables or demonstrations; we need to come to a common understanding on this one point before we move on.
dr_dave said:
Dave -- I really really want useful discussion.
I would be much obliged if you would read my post 121 and offer me as much advice as possible of how I might have communicated my thoughts better to encourage useful interaction.
I am at a loss. i really don't want to alienate anybody who might want to contribute positively to our common understanding.
Sometimes I get frustrated, occasionally I feel as though someone is condescending to me unfairly, and every now and then my communication might have a sprinkling of Tabasco sauce on it. But that's not very often, and I don't see myself as thin skinned. If you or others think I am, please let me know.
dr_dave said:
I spoke to Ron briefly earlier today. I think it's best that he video tape his system. Otherwise, you'll be looking at a copy versus the source. Since a video like that will be under lots of scrutiny, better to have it come from the source.
dr_dave said:
It does some good to point out when posts that purport to be factual are self-serving, especially when they're facually wrong. Too much sugar coating hides some truths.
I appreciate your attempts at peacekeeping, but sometimes we sing kumbaya at the expense of understanding. And I get tired of posting with "social training wheels" - I like to assume I'm talking to adults.
pj
chgo
SpiderWebComm said:
I've been reading and watching not really wanting to get into the middle of it, however i'm in the mood.
For all those who don't want a system to work please stay out of these types of threads. All you do is put people and ideas down. We don't need it.
Systems are like everything else, they either work for you or they don't. But because they may not be for you doesn't mean they don't for someone else.
I have taken lessons from Randy G and Carl in TX, Ron V @ SBE, and Hal H himself at his house. All of them require one on one demonstration. If you want to learn then either pay one of them to show you or try to find someone who has taken the lesson and get them to show you.
Ronny V, please do not give away free video to these knuckleheads. They will see it, try it, and if they can't figure it out then it's more threads just like this. They need to see it first hand from you, that way when they say "yeah but" you show them, then another question, and you show them, and in a hour or so they go "i finally get it".
Even I need to call Ron, Hal, Randy, or someone like spider dave to have a question answered once in a while.
Again, not all systems work for everyone, but everyone should take something away from each system what will work for you.
Ron's inside english, his banks, and straight in shot systems are the NUTS for me. However I'll use SAM for some angle shots that i can see better, and yet again for really thin cuts i like HH's CTE.
I feel so much better...
cbi --
I think I understand some of the disconnect here. The people in this discussion--many of us-- are involved in instruction and in the analysis of what's going on in all aiming techniques. We're not after the same think as a typical player spending an afternoon with HH or Ron or at Randy's pool school. Many of those players are looking for something that seems to help them out and help them to make more balls at the table.
We are after something different here. We recognize that certain advice presented in certain ways helps certain people under certain circumstances.
We want to look under the hood rather than get a ride across town.
We want to understand what is universal about the different advice people give. We want to understand the limitations. We want to understand just where the judgment comes in and where it doesn't. We want to understand the errors in peoples perception, what causes these errors and what fixes them.
I think I understand some of the disconnect here. The people in this discussion--many of us-- are involved in instruction and in the analysis of what's going on in all aiming techniques. We're not after the same think as a typical player spending an afternoon with HH or Ron or at Randy's pool school. Many of those players are looking for something that seems to help them out and help them to make more balls at the table.
We are after something different here. We recognize that certain advice presented in certain ways helps certain people under certain circumstances.
We want to look under the hood rather than get a ride across town.
We want to understand what is universal about the different advice people give. We want to understand the limitations. We want to understand just where the judgment comes in and where it doesn't. We want to understand the errors in peoples perception, what causes these errors and what fixes them.
cbi1000 said:I've been reading and watching not really wanting to get into the middle of it, however i'm in the mood.
For all those who don't want a system to work please stay out of these types of threads. All you do is put people and ideas down. We don't need it.
Systems are like everything else, they either work for you or they don't. But because they may not be for you doesn't mean they don't for someone else.
I have taken lessons from Randy G and Carl in TX, Ron V @ SBE, and Hal H himself at his house. All of them require one on one demonstration. If you want to learn then either pay one of them to show you or try to find someone who has taken the lesson and get them to show you.
Ronny V, please do not give away free video to these knuckleheads. They will see it, try it, and if they can't figure it out then it's more threads just like this. They need to see it first hand from you, that way when they say "yeah but" you show them, then another question, and you show them, and in a hour or so they go "i finally get it".
Even I need to call Ron, Hal, Randy, or someone like spider dave to have a question answered once in a while.
Again, not all systems work for everyone, but everyone should take something away from each system what will work for you.
Ron's inside english, his banks, and straight in shot systems are the NUTS for me. However I'll use SAM for some angle shots that i can see better, and yet again for really thin cuts i like HH's CTE.
I feel so much better...
*deleted*********
Last edited:
Mike,
I have felt similar frustrations, and I also don't like some of the negative comments thrown my way periodically. I just want to keep things as calm as possible in this thread so we can finally reach some common ground. Whenever we react, it gives the "other team" reason to attack back and detract from the debate.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself when you are the victim of unfair condescension.
You definitely do not have thin skin, and I very much like your periodic "sprinkling of Tabasco."
I have learned a lot from your posts and videos over the years, and I look forward to much more sharing in the future.
Regards,
Dave
I have felt similar frustrations, and I also don't like some of the negative comments thrown my way periodically. I just want to keep things as calm as possible in this thread so we can finally reach some common ground. Whenever we react, it gives the "other team" reason to attack back and detract from the debate.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself when you are the victim of unfair condescension.
You definitely do not have thin skin, and I very much like your periodic "sprinkling of Tabasco."
I have learned a lot from your posts and videos over the years, and I look forward to much more sharing in the future.
Regards,
Dave
mikepage said:
Dave,SpiderWebComm said:
I appreciate your respect for Ron, but I have to admit that I am very disappointed. I was very much looking forward to seeing how you (not Ron or others) align and pivot for the different shots. I hope you will reconsider. Maybe you could preface the video with something like this:
"This is my approach to pivot-based aiming inspired by some of the systems out there like CTE and 90-90 swivel. I don't claim that my approach is how others teach it. I just wanted to shoot this video to offer another resource for further discussion on the AZB forum, where pivot-based aiming is often debated."
After you post your video, Ron and others can let us know how their systems differ from yours. That would be useful information. Also, because you have posted similar videos in the past, the new video will help us better understand what you were doing in the previous videos. Again, please reconsider.Looking forward to better news,
Dave
PS: I have offered to film stuff with Ron, and I have offered several possible dates, but it might not work out in the near future. Maybe "Cleary" (I think that was his name) or others close to NY can film Ron in the meantime, but I hope you also contribute your version of the systems. You are a good shooter, you seem to have lots of knowledge and experience, and you have a great no-nonsense approach. I'm sure people will appreciate your contribution, even if it isn't exactly what Ron or others teach.
Appreciation of Dr. Dave
Dr. Dave, for what it is worth, I think you have the patience and disposition of a saint. You are so polite in your replies it's almost as if you were a 3C billiard player.
I'd participate in this debate but I'm simply not brave enough. The depth of feeling out there on aiming systems is pretty surprising to me and I just wish to avoid it. But I appreciate those who are brave enough to swim in those rapids.
Thanks for all you have done for the "science".
dr_dave said:
Dr. Dave, for what it is worth, I think you have the patience and disposition of a saint. You are so polite in your replies it's almost as if you were a 3C billiard player.
I'd participate in this debate but I'm simply not brave enough. The depth of feeling out there on aiming systems is pretty surprising to me and I just wish to avoid it. But I appreciate those who are brave enough to swim in those rapids.
Thanks for all you have done for the "science".