Aiming Systems - The End Justifies the Means

[Patrick Johnson]

Although you're technically correct, you might ask yourself why bother pivoting for english when you can adjust your sight and shoot with a straight cue?

Depends what you mean by "pivoting". Pivoting (BHE) can be easier than estimating, if you pivot at the right bridge length. But it's only as reliably accurate for the amount of spin if you pivot first and then stroke straight.

...it's a slight swiping BHE motion with the added knuckle roll (and that knuckle roll is slight as well).

I'd recommend straight-stroke BHE instead, without the wrist twist, for my reasons above. But to each his own.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Depends what you mean by "pivoting". Pivoting (BHE) can be easier than estimating, if you pivot at the right bridge length. But it's only as reliably accurate for the amount of spin if you pivot first and then stroke straight.


I'd recommend straight-stroke BHE instead, without the wrist twist, for my reasons above. But to each his own.

pj
chgo

See, that's my point. Glenn Rogers and Chavez would say, "I'd recommend twisting because of ____ reasons, but to each their own."

They would be looking at it from an elite player perspective that might defy academic logic and without that perspective, for us, it's tough to comprehend. Even so, it's important that we ask the right questions and get their perspective -- if they'd be willing to share.

 

[swest]

...perspective that might defy academic logic...

But the question is, as a player learning something new, why would you want to defy academic logic if it provides a way that is simpler in technique but identical in effect?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

See, that's my point. Glenn Rogers and Chavez would say, "I'd recommend twisting because of ____ reasons, but to each their own."

They would be looking at it from an elite player perspective that might defy academic logic and without that perspective, for us, it's tough to comprehend. Even so, it's important that we ask the right questions and get their perspective -- if they'd be willing to share.

And if their reasons made more sense, I'd recommend that instead. Until then...

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

The only things I sometimes dislike about "aiming systems" are the ridiculous "marketing claims," anecdotal "testimonials," and paid "endorsements" sometimes used in attempts to "sell" them. Examples of some of the "marketing claims" (many of which are direct quotes from past AZB posts) can be found in the marketing introduction for DAM.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,
You've made a bold claim and I'd like to see you back it up with facts.

Who was paid to endorse an aiming system?

 

[dr_dave]

Joey,

I wasn't referring to any specific quote, just a general pattern. Also, I wasn't implying any of your name calling is directed specifically toward me (although, I suspect this at times). Here are a few examples of the types of statements you (and a few others) seem to write or imply quite a lot:

"You're just an aiming system hater."

"You're just a Naysayer that doesn't even try stuff at a table."

"You're just a pro hater, trying to drive away from the forum people who actually know how to play."

"You're just a clueless academic that needs to get out more."​

These might not be direct quotes, but they are certainly similar to things you (and a few others) have written.

BTW, I certainly don't think of myself as any of those things. Concerning aiming systems, I certainly don't hate them. In fact, I have many of them described, illustrated, and demonstrated on my website here:

cut shot aiming systems
kick and bank shot aiming systems​

I've probably put more time and effort into these resource pages over the years than any of the others in the FAQ section of my website.

The only things I sometimes dislike about "aiming systems" are the ridiculous "marketing claims," anecdotal "testimonials," and "endorsements" sometimes used in attempts to "sell" them. Examples of some of the "marketing claims" (many of which are direct quotes from past AZB posts) can be found in the marketing introduction for DAM.

Dave,
You've made a bold claim and I'd like to see you back it up with facts.

Who was paid to endorse an aiming system?

If you would "get out more," you might know what I mean. :grin-square:

Seriously, I don't have "facts" proving "payments" have been made. Although, there are many forms of "payments" (e.g., free products, share of sales, "favors," etc.). I think most people know that pros sometimes get "paid" to "endorse" pool products.

However, since my statement was based on anecdotal evidence only, I've removed the word "paid" from my post. Thank you for forcing me to me more proper. I wouldn't want to be accused of "name calling." :wink:

Joey, I know I probably offended you with my name-calling post, and I know we've butted heads a few times in the past. I normally don't like to get involved with personal issues like this that detract from otherwise valuable discussion, debate, and sharing.

Let's both agree to do our best to stick to the topics and healthy debate, and try to stay away from the personal jabs back and forth. I promise to do my best with you from this day forward.

Peace,
Dave

 

[JoeyA]

If you would "get out more," you might know what I mean. :grin-square:

Seriously, I don't have "facts" proving "payments" have been made. Although, there are many forms of "payments" (e.g., free products, share of sales, "favors," etc.). I think most people know that pros sometimes get "paid" to "endorse" pool products.

However, since my statement was based on anecdotal evidence only, I've removed the word "paid" from my post. Thank you for forcing me to me more proper. I wouldn't want to be accused of "name calling." :wink:

Joey, I know I probably offended you with my name-calling post, and I know we've butted heads a few times in the past. I normally don't like to get involved with personal issues like this that detract from otherwise valuable discussion, debate, and sharing.

Let's both agree to do our best to stick to the topics and healthy debate, and try to stay away from the personal jabs back and forth. I promise to do my best with you from this day forward.

Peace,
Dave

No offense taken Dave. No heads butted. We're all good.

But while you're making attempts to clean up your act, you might consider refraining from using "quotes" when you're paraphrasing what you think people have said in the past.

And if you do quote someone, quote the person with their name, not just some imaginary person that you recollect saying something. Give some credit where credit is due.

You may not want to ask permission of the creators of aiming systems and other pool information that you post on your website but it would be a classy thing to do.

If they object to past references on your website crediting them for their work, perhaps you might consider removing those works/"credits", which are there to primarily increase traffic to your website. :wink:

 

[CJ Wiley]

Bugs says straight back

Wrist twist is not required to "twist" banks in. The term "twist" is often used to describe "changing the rebound angle with transferred spin." Wrist twist is not required (or generally recommended) to transfer spin to the object ball. FYI, many examples (including some video demonstrations) of spin-transfer (AKA "tiwst") bank shots can be found here:

spin-transfer ("twist") bank shots​

Regards,
Dave

You say tomato, Bugs says straight back with a "twist" of hold. :wink:

 

[lfigueroa]

If you would "get out more," you might know what I mean. :grin-square:

Seriously, I don't have "facts" proving "payments" have been made. Although, there are many forms of "payments" (e.g., free products, share of sales, "favors," etc.). I think most people know that pros sometimes get "paid" to "endorse" pool products.

However, since my statement was based on anecdotal evidence only, I've removed the word "paid" from my post. Thank you for forcing me to me more proper. I wouldn't want to be accused of "name calling." :wink:

Joey, I know I probably offended you with my name-calling post, and I know we've butted heads a few times in the past. I normally don't like to get involved with personal issues like this that detract from otherwise valuable discussion, debate, and sharing.

Let's both agree to do our best to stick to the topics and healthy debate, and try to stay away from the personal jabs back and forth. I promise to do my best with you from this day forward.

Peace,
Dave

People "endorse" things for all kinds of reasons.

And the payment for said endorsement can run a gamut and is not limited to cash. Some people endorse because they are friends or even relatives of the seller. Others endorse because they have been provided free product either in advance, or after, a favorable review. Others endorse because they they seek status in the community the product is being made available. Some of these folks endorse because they are promised their "review" will appear inside a book cover, on a DVD cover, or on a website.

It's always a good idea to learn if someone who endorses a product has a relationship with the seller and if they paid for the product in question. Caveat emptor.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

But the question is, as a player learning something new, why would you want to defy academic logic if it provides a way that is simpler in technique but identical in effect?

Because what seems to be easier on paper isn't always easier on a table.

"Easy" is perspective-based. What you think is impossible --- I might think is a throw-in.

 

[cookie man]

People "endorse" things for all kinds of reasons.

And the payment for said endorsement can run a gamut and is not limited to cash. Some people endorse because they are friends or even relatives of the seller. Others endorse because they have been provided free product either in advance, or after, a favorable review. Others endorse because they they seek status in the community the product is being made available. Some of these folks endorse because they are promised their "review" will appear inside a book cover, on a DVD cover, or on a website.

It's always a good idea to learn if someone who endorses a product has a relationship with the seller and if they paid for the product in question. Caveat emptor.

Lou Figueroa

And some nameless pro's say things when a certain someone buys them steak dinners.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

And if their reasons made more sense, I'd recommend that instead. Until then...

pj
chgo

Like I just said above, "sense" is what's easiest to execute when it counts. That's the problem with guys who don't want to really grind out non-traditional techniques. They think to themselves, "Gee--- that seems WAY harder than the book method" and they never really try to learn why so many elite players incorporate those techniques.

The break down is when you say, "And if their reasons made more sense," you're implying what they're saying is false and nonsensical across the board. You're implying they themselves don't know what they're talking about, as if they're idiot savants. All execution and no sense. The reality of which is they probably tried to apply english in every manner known to God and ended up where they are. Pool is outcome-based--- if twisting nets the best result, it's the MOOOOVE - regardless of what your logic tells you.

Then you say, "I'd recommend that instead...until then" as if your recommendation is the final word on the topic. So on one hand you have a collection of elite players who swear by the method and on the other hand sits Patrick Johnson, who like most of us is a pool nobody who never won a major title and spends his time on the internet debating pool topics. If you can't do anything with a twist that can't be done with a straight cue, why not approach Mr. Rogers to see who can twist a bank more?

If stroke / technique really don't matter (everything is vector, cue speed and tip offset), then he should have no advantage over you when it comes to spinning a ball. You've been playing for years and can accelerate quickly up until contact. You also have a fast stroke speed --- so why would you have no chance against a twister like Glenn? All things being equal--- what if his twist technique nets more spin than your straight cue?

I would love to read PJ's recommendations if he went deep into learning techniques by actually doing them. Without bringing concepts to the table to really test the conditions in real life--- they're just theories and opinions.

Somewhere along the line the concept of pool being "outcome-based" was lost in this thread. If it were one or two guys who twisted, it'd be an anomaly. However, there are a lot of guys doing it so it's not a fluke technique.... regardless of who recommends what on an internet pool forum.

<< Not a twister, but not close-minded to techniques utilized by elite players. What an academic might think of as an "overly complicated" technique that can be replicated with a much simpler technique, I see an opportunity to learn a technique that isn't overly complicated.... since elite players focus on simplicity and results. An "academic" would probably figure out the outrageously slim probability of making a three pointer while shooting over a monster defensive NBA player. The "player" just makes the shot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

[snip Spidey's rant]

I didn't notice any actual reasons in that novel of a post to twist my wrist - other than the fact that a few celebrity players do it for no obvious benefit. If you ever come up with any, I'm all ears. Until then I'll go with all the good reasons not to.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

If testimonials are only valid from people who do NOT have a (paid) relationship with the person selling the product then the amount of positive testimonials far far far far outweighs the negative ones for Stan Shuffett's work.

We could count them I guess but if anyone wants to bet on it I have $100 that says of the people who paid for a DVD and who have zero relationship to to Stan beyond being a DVD customer the positive testimonials are much more than the negatives.

And I am willing to make this bet even INCLUDING the negative testimonials by people who were prejudiced against Stan and his methods long BEFORE the DVD came out. In other words I will spot anyone who wants to bet those negative critiques and still bet that the positive testimonials/endorsements are much more.

And by positive I mean people who said they bought it, absorbed the information and that it has helped them to become better players.

Bet?

 

[Slide Rule]

If testimonials are only valid from people who do NOT have a (paid) relationship with the person selling the product then the amount of positive testimonials far far far far outweighs the negative ones for Stan Shuffett's work.

We could count them I guess but if anyone wants to bet on it I have $100 that says of the people who paid for a DVD and who have zero relationship to to Stan beyond being a DVD customer the positive testimonials are much more than the negatives.

And I am willing to make this bet even INCLUDING the negative testimonials by people who were prejudiced against Stan and his methods long BEFORE the DVD came out. In other words I will spot anyone who wants to bet those negative critiques and still bet that the positive testimonials/endorsements are much more.

And by positive I mean people who said they bought it, absorbed the information and that it has helped them to become better players.

Bet?

I like many of your posts.

But to say that someone who is an expert in a field can NOT be relied on
for their view because of a financial arrangement is. Shortsighted.

That is the arguement used against those locating oil. Can't be trusted.

Can't be trusted by whom.

A person builds a reputation and should be able to use it independent of
who they work for or know on a personal basis. That is the basis of
networking.

So ditch the socialist meme or lazy statement to discredit. A person's
reputation and character are not determined or contrarily detracted by
their employer.

This is the kind of non argument seen on NPR.


Attack the recommendation or argument for something not the character
making it.


:grin:

 

[JB Cases]

I like many of your posts.

But to say that someone who is an expert in a field can NOT be relied on
for their view because of a financial arrangement is. Shortsighted.

That is the arguement used against those locating oil. Can't be trusted.

Can't be trusted by whom.

A person builds a reputation and should be able to use it independent of
who they work for or know on a personal basis. That is the basis of
networking.

So ditch the socialist meme or lazy statement to discredit. A person's
reputation and character are not determined or contrarily detracted by
their employer.

This is the kind of non argument seen on NPR.


Attack the recommendation or argument for something not the character
making it.


:grin:

I am not saying that AT ALL.

I am of the opinion that the expert opinion carries weight whether they are sponsored or not.

But some folks seem to think that any sort of financial relationship invalidates a professional's testimonial. I also make a HUGE distinction between something a professional would use in their game and a product that has zero bearing on their game. A method of aiming seems like a pretty big part of playing pool so when Darren Appleton or Stevie Moore endorse a particular one then I have to believe in my heart that they are not steering people wrong.

So I am willing to toss out their testimonials and just count the unpaid ones, positive and negative.

And with that in mind, the positives far outweigh the negatives. At least I am willing to bet on it.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I didn't notice any actual reasons in that novel of a post to twist my wrist - other than the fact that a few celebrity players do it for no obvious benefit. If you ever come up with any, I'm all ears. Until then I'll go with all the good reasons not to.

pj
chgo

No obvious benefit to you. To them the obvious benefit is more effective, easier execution.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[CJ Wiley]

we owe you dinner next time we see you

People "endorse" things for all kinds of reasons.

And the payment for said endorsement can run a gamut and is not limited to cash. Some people endorse because they are friends or even relatives of the seller. Others endorse because they have been provided free product either in advance, or after, a favorable review. Others endorse because they they seek status in the community the product is being made available. Some of these folks endorse because they are promised their "review" will appear inside a book cover, on a DVD cover, or on a website.

It's always a good idea to learn if someone who endorses a product has a relationship with the seller and if they paid for the product in question. Caveat emptor.

Lou Figueroa

We all appreciate you saying those things for us Lou, we owe you dinner next time we see you. :wink:

 

[CJ Wiley]

wish Charlie was here, the info would really flow

Why can't you get him involved? There should be more pros speaking about their own "Stuff" on here. It's getting to be a job doing it myself. :smile:

 

[lfigueroa]

We all appreciate you saying those things for us Lou, we owe you dinner next time we see you. :wink:

Who are the we?

Lou Figueroa