Aiming Systems - The End Justifies the Means

[dr_dave]

... I don't think twisting the cue (or even thinking about twisting the cue) during the stroke is good advice for most people. There are better things to think about and do that will have better and more consistent results. For an explanation, see:

NV B.33 - Back-hand swoop and twist ball-turn techniques​

Dave,
I have seen wrist-twisters who have mastered the technique to achieve very positive results, which are more difficult to achieve with traditional methods of keeping the wrist straight, or using BHE etc. They play far better than you or I.

Joey,

I don't doubt that some people can get positive results by twisting their wrist during a shot. I have also seen people twist their wrist quite effectively. With enough skill, practice, and experience, practically any technique (regardless of how ineffective it might be for most people) can yield positive results. However, that doesn't mean wrist twisting is good advice for most people. IMO, the same positive results can be achieved using less complicated techniques that are more consistent and take less time to "master."

Personally, I think you do an injustice to the pool players of the world by making light of this technique.

In retrospect, I wish I had been more "diplomatic" in that video. However, I filmed it in response to a wrist-twist thread many years ago when I felt a "different perspective" was called for. Regardless, I probably should have been more "tactful" in my delivery (while still presenting the same content). Live and learn.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I have seen them make shots using this technique and they claim that they can't do it as well or in some cases not at all using non-twisting motion.

Joey,

I think it would be interesting and educational to discuss actual shot examples where you or others feel positive results are more likely by twisting the wrist.

If we had an actual example, everybody could actually try the shot with and without wrist twist, after lots of practice with the wrist-twist technique, to see which approach might be more accurate and consistent with each individual. I, for one, would be interested in spending time on such an experiment.

I know "Freddy the Beard" suggests that wrist twist is required on certain bank shots. Should we use one of those examples? Do you or others have other types of shots in mind?

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

... Hopefully Dr. Dave will give us a link but I seem to remember one really helpful video where he and I think Bob Jewett were doing some experiments on rail compression and the net result was that the actual motion was very different from conventional theory on what was happening. I remember seeing the video and saying wow that's really good to know this. IIRC it had to do with banking or kicking and the idea that a hard shot would ALWAYS shorten the path while a softer shot would ALWAYS lengthen the path. The results however showed that this was not the case if I remember it right.

Here are two pertinent videos from my bank and kick effects resource page:

HSV B.41 - bank speed effects, with Bob Jewett
NV B.95 - Post-rebound spin, angle, and curve for stunned kicks and banks​

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I watched a Buddy Hall Video and twisting his wrist to apply "BHE" on the last stroke is what he teaches.

There are some advantages to swooping the stroke (with or without wrist twist) instead of adjusting one's aim before stroking. Here's a pertinent quote from my stroke swoop resource page:

One possible advantage of the stroke-swoop method is the initial alignment is center-ball, which might be more comfortable for some people. With BHE, the pivot-before-stroke alignment can be disconcerting (because the final alignment looks crooked). However, it can be difficult to be consistent with a swooping stroke (e.g., with the exact amount of English applied, or with avoiding a miscue when attempting to apply maximum English).​

Regards,
Dave

 

[ronscuba]

Apparently you can't either...?

pj
chgo

P.S. They're not "my physics theories".

CTE, other aiming techniques, CJ's hitting inside, thin vs thick shafts, all things people are experiencing results that I have read you debating about in the last month. If your explanations are so easy then there would be no debate.

I think you know what I meant by "your physics theories". But in case you did not....what I meant was your interpretation of which theory explains the results. Physics is physics, but the theory you choose to explain the result might not be the correct one and/or there are other factors that are influencing the results that you did not account for.

Wow, I am not looking to get into a big argument with you. I will leave that to others.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

We've come along way from an open fire and spit (well, some of us have). Nowadays, guys like Alton Brown have popularized science in the kitchen so that cooks understand the processes better and make the outcomes more predictable. If you really want to get into this there are books like "The Science of Cooking" by Peter Barham that explains "how a practical understanding of physics and chemistry can improve culinary performance…"

IOW, understanding the science will not harm you but it sure can make you better. Not that I would expect everyone involved in this discussion to understand that.

Lou Figueroa

You're just obsessed with reality. Don't you know that's bad for your game?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CTE, other aiming techniques, CJ's hitting inside, thin vs thick shafts, all things people are experiencing results that I have read you debating about in the last month.

I haven't debated anybody's results; I've questioned their explanations.

If your explanations are so easy then there would be no debate.

You're mistaken. I said physics can easily explain pool, not that everybody on AzB would easily understand it.

Wow, I am not looking to get into a big argument with you. I will leave that to others.

OK. Nice talking with you.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

Joey,

I think it would be interesting and educational to discuss actual shot examples where you or others feel positive results are more likely by twisting the wrist.

If we had an actual example, everybody could actually try the shot with and without wrist twist, after lots of practice with the wrist-twist technique, to see which approach might be more accurate and consistent with each individual. I, for one, would be interested in spending time on such an experiment.

I know "Freddy the Beard" suggests that wrist twist is required on certain bank shots. Should we use one of those examples? Do you or others have other types of shots in mind?

Regards,
Dave

This is my theory about wrist-twisting, elbow dropping, no elbow dropping, short back-swing, long back-swing, hip twist, body movement, death grip, sparrow grip, etc.

Many people have found that they have greater success using "unique & personal" techniques that match their particular body mechanics. While traditional methods might be able to accomplish the same thing; for these particular individuals, this is not so.

One person might possess 80% fast-twitch muscles while another may possess 80% slow-twitch muscles. It is obvious to me that the same techniques will not provide the same level of performance for both athletes, hence the need for different techniques to perform the same task with same results.

There are MOST LIKELY many other reasons for using different techniques to accomplish the same goal such as visual-spatial intelligence or visual acuity.

The rush often seen in this very forum to provide mirth and ridicule at the expense of those who see and feel things differently is actually a mockery of the academics' own selves.

Everyone sees and feels things differently. Learning is the same. I am sure the wrist-twisters of the world won't argue the point that the academics are so quick to point out, that the technique of wrist-twisting can be accomplished with far more traditional techniques. The wrist-twisters will be content to just continue to blister the non wrist-twisters arse each time they come into competition with them.

I doubt that anyone who is an accomplished wrist-twister would be interested in being put under the academics' microscope just for sport; under the guise of scientific research. It's probably the reason that most pool athletes avoid this forum, imo.

I think the truth is that some of us utilize certain unique techniques SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WORK BETTER FOR US, nothing more.

It is the same for aiming systems: CTE/Pro1, Perfect Aim, Contact point to contact point, ghost ball, shadow system, light system.

We're all a bunch of imperfect human beings (academically, physically, visually, emotionally, mentally, & yes spiritually) and there are many different ways to see things and to do things well. It's not a question of whether most people are better off using a certain technique. That's a given. More importantly, is that everyone should acknowledge that unique techniques can actually provide superior results for some of us, simply because we are all unique individuals.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Dave,
I have seen wrist-twisters who have mastered the technique to achieve very positive results, which are more difficult to achieve with traditional methods of keeping the wrist straight, or using BHE etc. They play far better than you or I.

They can also keep their wrist straight when needed and do so.

Personally, I think you do an injustice to the pool players of the world by making light of this technique.

Most of the wrist twisters I know, are accomplished players and maybe it is just an advanced technique that some haven't mastered. I do know that these same people play with a straight wrist on most shots but when they need the wrist-twist, they don't hesitate to use it.

Joey,

I tend to agree. 'We' have to get out of diapers at some point. There are maybe a score of different levels of players here on AZB & probably everyone of them wants to get to their next level. Whether it's training pants or that custom tailored tuxeo for that future televised world championship.I think many on AZB do not want to be like most . They want to be better.

Experimentation is the only way to determine if one can execute a technique or not. That experimentation will determine if they can put it in their tool box or should leave it in the attic.

My nickel,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

The thing is that physics does not "easily" explain results. Someone posted the math behind the ghost ball method. I don't think that the math included all the variables associated with the GB method either.

In all my years in pool and having read dozens of books I have never seen anyone use the math to explain ghostball to a student. If the equation that covers GB were put up on a whiteboard it would be completely meaningless to the practical application of the method.

Why?

Because to use GB properly a person must develop a pretty good judgement for distance from stationary objects. I.e. you must be able to fairly accurately determine without the use of tools where 1.125" is away from the object ball in line with the pocket and have sufficiently sharp visualization skills to fix that area in your mind and align to it. This a purely sensory exercise using no conscious math.

However as a concept to explain the very basic task of how to align the cue stick to the cue ball to send it to the object ball ghost ball is brilliant. No math required, just simple illustration. No one cares or even needs to know the exact geometry in order to use it.

And the same applies to everything that happens on a pool table. Some people just make the balls obey them without knowing the math. Other people enjoy knowing the science and enjoy making sure that everyone else knows the science. For them the worst thing in the world is when someone says, I don't know why this works but it's very effective. Those people want everything broken down into the smallest components so that it can be categorized and filed away. Two ends of the spectrum.

Luckily we live in a world where people can enjoy themselves despite having different views. It's ok to simply love to play pool without knowing the math behind it. It's ok that in reality it all boils down to tip placement and acceleration and yet still be fine with knowing that there is more than one way to get there.

At the end of it all the table stands inert waiting to be played on. The balls only do what you are capable of directing them to do. They don't care how much math you know or don't know. They care about whether you hit them in the right direction or not and whether they will left on the table to be hit again or sent into the pockets for a little rest.

At the end it's the results that matter, not the means. If you use an aiming system and you are a run out player then great. If you use no system and you are a runout player then great. The table and the balls are there for you no matter who you are and what you know.

John,

Tap! Tap! Tap!

I for one am glad you're here again.

RJ aka Rick

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases:
...I seem to remember one really helpful video where he and I think Bob Jewett were doing some experiments on rail compression and the net result was that the actual motion was very different from conventional theory on what was happening.

The results of that test actually confirmed (again) the basic principle (not a theory) that balls bank shorter if they're sliding at impact with the rail. The test showed the additional fact that hard hit sliding balls bank a little longer than slower sliding balls - but in both cases they bank shorter than rolling balls, consistent with the existing principle.

"Science" (i.e., actual measurement as opposed to common pool mythology) simply revealed more detail about reality, as usual. Of course, knowing what causes what is "too much information" for some, so I recommend caution.

pj
chgo

P.S. It's worth pointing out that if something surprising had been revealed by this test, it would have been "science" that revealed it, as usual.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I have seen them make shots using this technique and they claim that they can't do it as well or in some cases not at all using non-twisting motion.

Joey,

As I stated somewhere yesterday, there are certain soft high inside english shots that I 'have to' flex an open handed bridge up & down timed with the stroke. I have tried them with a still bridge & do not execute them anywhere near the same percentage. That is part of HAMB. I have found an unconventual method to increase my pocketing of those specific shots.

RJ aka Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

I once knew a fairly strong player that twisted his cue for all his left and right english. I asked him about it and he said it was because he liked to lock his wrist and not do anything unusual with his stroke. :smile: The irony was he could snap off a hundred on you all the while thinking his stroke was straight!

I occasionally twist the cue for left hand spin because I'm right handed. Couldn't tell you when it's gonna happen. Just does. It's my spasm spin.

Best,
Mike

Mike,

Perhaps a clarification of 'twist' & 'twisting' is in order. I have seen several uses of the term here with what I deem to be different meanings. Also, the timing of the 'twist', before or during (at impact).

CJ has said clockwise & counter CW at impact.

Someone said twisting before the stroke, I do not understand how that imparts 'twisting' spin unless it is used as a form of backhand english which would be different to what CJ is referring, I believe.

I'm just trying to point out that this 'twisting' discussion has hit a fork in the road & appears to have perhaps gone in different directions of two(2) different concepts.

Just trying to clarify,
RJ aka Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

I agree but no one has made any claims here that transcends physics. Assuming that physics governs all the we experience then nothing any of us experiences and talks about transcends physics.

When someone says that something can't be explained with physics then what they really mean is that they can't explain it using physics but it's still effective.

Sometimes we don't really need to know HOW something works in order to use it. In fact I'd go so far as to say that for just about everything we do we don't know how things work.

John,

Almost all of us, personally, do not even know how we learned to walk or talk, but most of us walk & talk fairly well. Some better than others.

I have high school & college physics. I almost never think about the physics of pool. I just play pool.

I have coached a mentally challenged man to beat his friend, including hitting with english. He did exactly as I asked him to do with no questions. It all worked 'perfectly' well & I doubt that he even knows there is such an animal as 'physics'.

Physics is real, but the math used to explain it is man made. I doubt that man has made anything that is perfect.

My nickel,
RJ aka Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

I really can't relate to the obsession with physics....it's like being obsessed with proving that everything we eat has ingredients, but never wanting to learn how to cook or even taste the food. "the map (of physics) is not the territory" (of understanding)... anyway, to each their own way :wink:

My attempt: Physics is like the commentators of a pool match explaining to the general public what just happened. The general public sees a cue ball draw back the full length of the table or more & they are like 'WOW did you see that'. They have no idea of how that is done. (unless they had a Houla Hoop when they were young & did the spin back thing with it)

We do not need to know the physics but it can't hurt if we do. PJ is correct. The physics is there & there is no way around it. But, like someone mantioned, we are human beings playing pool, not mechanical robots.

Here's a word problem that I would like a math formula to explain.

The European Team won the 2012 Rider Cup on Sept. 31, 2012.

The MVP for the European Team was Seve Ballesteros.

Seve Ballesteros died on May 7, 2011

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think twisting isn't rotating the cue along it's long axis, it's merely the turning of the wrist. It's just another way to pivot the cue without moving your upper arm/elbow or your upper body (hip pivot).

Nobody here ever said pivoting was bad--- so why is turning your wrist bad in order to pivot? Nobody said it's good for beginners, but at the same time nobody here can say it's a bad technique.

If a top player prefers to arc their cue from their wrist because they can execute that movement better than otherwise, I guess it's the moooove.

 

[ENGLISH!]

This is my theory about wrist-twisting, elbow dropping, no elbow dropping, short back-swing, long back-swing, hip twist, body movement, death grip, sparrow grip, etc.

Many people have found that they have greater success using "unique & personal" techniques that match their particular body mechanics. While traditional methods might be able to accomplish the same thing; for these particular individuals, this is not so.

One person might possess 80% fast-twitch muscles while another may possess 80% slow-twitch muscles. It is obvious to me that the same techniques will not provide the same level of performance for both athletes, hence the need for different techniques to perform the same task with same results.

There are MOST LIKELY many other reasons for using different techniques to accomplish the same goal such as visual-spatial intelligence or visual acuity.

The rush often seen in this very forum to provide mirth and ridicule at the expense of those who see and feel things differently is actually a mockery of the academics' own selves.

Everyone sees and feels things differently. Learning is the same. I am sure the wrist-twisters of the world won't argue the point that the academics are so quick to point out, that the technique of wrist-twisting can be accomplished with far more traditional techniques. The wrist-twisters will be content to just continue to blister the non wrist-twisters arse each time they come into competition with them.

I doubt that anyone who is an accomplished wrist-twister would be interested in being put under the academics' microscope just for sport; under the guise of scientific research. It's probably the reason that most pool athletes avoid this forum, imo.

I think the truth is that some of us utilize certain unique techniques SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WORK BETTER FOR US, nothing more.

It is the same for aiming systems: CTE/Pro1, Perfect Aim, Contact point to contact point, ghost ball, shadow system, light system.

We're all a bunch of imperfect human beings (academically, physically, visually, emotionally, mentally, & yes spiritually) and there are many different ways to see things and to do things well. It's not a question of whether most people are better off using a certain technique. That's a given. More importantly, is that everyone should acknowledge that unique techniques can actually provide superior results for some of us, simply because we are all unique individuals.

Right On! Far out! Tap ! Tap ! Tap

 

[ronscuba]

We do not need to know the physics but it can't hurt if we do. ......

Is it possible obsessing about the physics can hurt ? Does knowing the physics help ? Not knowing the physics hurt ?

Knowing the physics is fun for people who are into that kind of thing. I am one of those people. I also like freeing my mind of the physics and how it seems to improve my game. Trying a technique on the table, watching it work in action. Sometimes the physics explanation is obvious, other times it is not. I used have a need to know and understand the physics. Not so much anymore and coincidence or not, my game has improved.

Curious about current and past top level players. How many of them are considered feel players vs. technical science type players ?

 

[CJ Wiley]

I never knew pool was so complicated and confusing...

John,

Almost all of us, personally, do not even know how we learned to walk or talk, but most of us walk & talk fairly well. Some better than others.

I have high school & college physics. I almost never think about the physics of pool. I just play pool.

I have coached a mentally challenged man to beat his friend, including hitting with english. He did exactly as I asked him to do with no questions. It all worked 'perfectly' well & I doubt that he even knows there is such an animal as 'physics'.

Physics is real, but the math used to explain it is man made. I doubt that man has made anything that is perfect.

My nickel,
RJ aka Rick

The good news is it's actually simple, RJ....if I listened to this complicated "spin" I wouldn't be able to run a rack...LOL :bash: :groucho:

 

[ENGLISH!]

Curious about current and past top level players. How many of them are considered feel players vs. technical science type players ?

I would venture feel far out number the technical science, but where is the line drawn? There is probably a blend where they might know the science but still play by feel, like me.

RJ