diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems

[ShootingArts]

I'll bet the family farm on that one

Playing the violin isn't the topic; playing "Pivoting Aiming" on the violin is the topic. Surely you've seen sheet music...?

pj
chgo

pj,

I'll bet the family farm that sheet music won't make someone a skilled violinist. I can read sheet music, or could. I have tried playing a handful of musical instruments over the years and I would have to describe my abilities as very modest. Others have described them less kindly.

However you have made a huge stride in a post up above. That is worthy of a separate reply.

Hu

 

[SpiderWebComm]

PJ doesn't offend me. I'm cool. Getting mad at PJ is like kicking my cat when he flicks cat litter out of the box onto my bathroom floor. It is what it is.

Having a conversation at a table is important. If the diagrams were correct, when I hit centerball on different shots, the ball would never go. I can 1-stroke them in post-pivot. How geometrically screwed-up is that?

I still contend there's something missing, or I'd never make a thing. Before you say my feel is super refined, I'm not 75% of my aiming system speed when I shoot with feel/ghost ball.

We're repeating the same stuff every thread. It's too bad we can't stand at a table as a group. It WOULD prove something.

Bring a few large pieces of poster board, blind fold me, setup the shot, block the pockets, unblindfold me, and let me shoot. Just get the boards out of the way before the OB rockets through them into the pocket. I'm lost how that wouldn't prove anything.

Deep down, I really don't care. My ball pocketing went up 5x since I'm learned this stuff. Is it mental? Nope. Did I miraculously figure out adjustments I didn't know before? Nope.

Do top players use this stuff. Yup. Are they morons? Nope.

I don't mind putting myself out there. I know many wouldn't have the courage. Doesn't bother me. I posted a bad video of bad technique 1-time that Dr. Dave keeps referring to -- which is a shame for be but oh well. I could post another video without that tiny movement, but it wouldn't fix anything. Until the math people wanna stand over my shoulder 2 feet away and critique me in person and look at my "tiny adjustments" from inches away, I'm bored with these threads.

I REALLY wish everyone else would post videos of themselves playing. That'd be nice. Dr. Dave, PJ, Mike, Colin (I've seen you play, but want to see more. You're a player).

I think every one of us should record Colin's drill or the Q-Skill thing by Hopkins and post it here so we can examine everyone's style and ball pocketing to see what everyone does right.

What's wrong with that? I fee like an amoeba under a microscope. I wanna check you guys out too so I can learn from you too! I know you guys can play - step up and record. I KNOW Mike has a sweet table - I've seen his lessons. Let's see some shooting so I can pick up stuff as well

Dave

 

[ShootingArts]

a huge stride

pj,

Your little diagram indicating that balls appear smaller the further they are away is truly a huge stride. I say this with no sarcasm or malice. Once this is acknowledged it points out a flaw in every overhead diagram indicating the cue ball and object ball as the same size and projecting any sight lines or aim lines to any location other than to the center of the object ball.

As your diagram plainly shows, the sight lines from either side or 90-90 actually converge with a sight line through the same points on the other side of the balls or a sight line center to center.

Is this part of the solution to why some of the aiming systems work? Is it an additional flaw that all aiming systems including ghost ball are subject to? I don't know. But I do know that a more accurate depiction of how we are actually aligning our cues would be huge.

Many thanks for posting the diagram so clearly illustrating a fundamental flaw of the diagrams based on overhead views. The more accurate the information is that the people seeking answers are working with the more likely they are to arrive at an accurate conclusion.

Hu

Yes, you're wrong - but at least you're beginning to ask the right detailed questions rather than just assuming that because 3D is "different" it makes a real difference here.

If you line up a CB and several OBs so their centers are on a straight line, their right edges (and left edges) also line up on straight lines. In other words, you look along the same line to see the edges of OBs at any distance - no eye movement required.

View attachment 82561

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'll bet the family farm that sheet music won't make someone a skilled violinist.

And learning an aiming system doesn't make one a skilled pool player. In other words, you can learn the mechanics of an aiming system on paper just as you can learn a song from sheet music, assuming you already know your instrument. In other words, your analogy is inapplicable.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Many thanks for posting the diagram so clearly illustrating a fundamental flaw of the diagrams based on overhead views.

You're welcome, but in fact it clearly illustrates that 2D and 3D views are identical for sighting ball edges. If you think they differ in some other way that bears on this discussion I'd be interested to hear what it is.

pj
chgo

 

[crosseyedjoe]

Let me throw a thought at ya, Mike.

I keep mentioning perception to everyone, yet no one is really paying attention.

On a 2D diagram, the balls are all the same size.

In real life, well, they're the same size too (wouldn't ya know?)

The big "but" is.... your brain doesn't think so. The ball gets smaller to the eye in direct proportion to increased distance which makes you sight a line to the inside. I'll repeat......"perception, perception, perception."

Hal once told me the "geometric proof" isn't a 2D proof, and he's right. Although he doesn't visit the forum anymore because of his health, he used to giggle at everyone posting cuetable diagrams in order to show why it didn't work.

Let's all cook on that one for a while. The old man knows something we don't. Hmmm...the CB looks "big" because it's right in front of your face.

Regards,
Dave

P.S. Dr. Dave, can you simulate 3D in 2D space? Can each ball have two edges - the true edge and perceived edge (smaller) and recalculate? I think everyone would be surprised at how different the results look.

Doesn't your (sighting and aiming) lines also follow the same proportion because of your perception making the balls theoretically the same size? Just a thought . . .

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Pj's diagram only proves my 'distance theory' was incorrect. No biggie - I had a thought this morning and shared it. I didn't prove why's or why nots outside of my earlier post. He's been wrong a few times as well.

We're still back where we started, on why people pocket really really well with these systems as opposed to ghost ball.

 

[cookie man]

And learning an aiming system doesn't make one a skilled pool player. In other words, you can learn the mechanics of an aiming system on paper just as you can learn a song from sheet music, assuming you already know your instrument. In other words, your analogy is inapplicable.

pj
chgo

Still refusing to try them on a table, but keep posting about them!!!

 

[ShootingArts]

We aim at our perception of the object ball

You're welcome, but in fact it clearly illustrates that 2D and 3D views are identical for sighting ball edges. If you think they differ in some other way that bears on this discussion I'd be interested to hear what it is.

pj
chgo

pj,

if the two views were identical for sighting the ball edges then either the lines would converge in the top view or be parallel from the shooter's perspective, which you clearly illustrated they aren't. They are illustrated in the top views as parallel and as converging when illustrating the apparent difference in size of objects further away.

Your claim that they are identical violates one of the basic laws of geometry that you are so fond of. The parallel lines in the top view will meet if extended in the side view.

I'm sure there is a simple formula for calculating the apparent size reduction of an object at a given distance. If we have a cue ball two feet from our eyes and an object ball eight feet away, what is their apparent difference in scale?

Since we aim using our sight our perception of each object may be critical to understanding how any aiming system does or doesn't work. We aren't aiming at a ball that we see as equal size to the cue ball except when they are very close together.

Hu

 

[dr_dave]

We're still back where we started, on why people pocket really really well with these systems as opposed to ghost ball.

The best answer I have read so far for this question (others can be found in the answer to the 2nd question here) was from Colin:

I wanted to make a post listing what I perceive to be the strongest advantages of these systems.

I think these advantages are the main reason players often find great success aiming and shooting this way.

1. Sighting point to point helps one to perceive an exact line and to take in the positions of the two balls relative to this line. In other words, they use a repeatable fixed method to visualize the ball positions.

2. These systems put you either right on line to begin with or in the ball park when used for appropriate shots.

3. In the pivot phase they move from this fixed line to another visual line that they perceive through the center of the CB. This finding of an aim line forces the mind to be decisive and exact. I believe forcing this decisiveness trains the mind not to wander and to make better decisions than just feeling around back and forth hoping to feel a ghost ball or contact point angle.

4. I suspect this one is the most powerful factor in these aiming methods. They force a player to commit to a pot line and then strike the cue dead straight through that line, rather than to swoop sideways on the shot as almost all beginners do. Because they focus hard on their pre-stroke alignment, they trust this line and stroke straight. If they do miss certain shots they will soon compensate with their aim until they learn to see the correct line.

The normal player very often aims thick on their cut angles and swoops a little to make the cuts. When they try to bring speed or english into those shots they meet with many difficulties. So using any system that forces a player to adopt strict and accurate pre-alignment, followed by a straight stroke, should meet with considerable success and consistancy after intensive practice.

5. Because players learn to trust their pre-alignment they begin to be able to relax during the actual stroke. This takes tension out of their arms and body and they can begin to execute with better speed and a more satisfactory feeling during execution. This may explain the feeling that they feel like they just pivot, bang and the ball goes in.

This is quite different to the normal play experience where there is a tendency to ride the ball into the hole. This occurs when players don't trust their alignment and tend to swoop a little to ride the cue ball to the correct point. This method of playing tends to make one have to work physically and mentally during the stroke. When pre-aligned well, the stroke is simply a matter of swinging the cue.

The only thing I don't agree with regarding these systems is that the systems find the aim line. I think it is the players that align themselves (via slight intuitive adjustments) to the correct aim line when need be. It will take them a little while to develop this ability for a wide range of shots.​

Do you or others have more to add about how the necessary adjustments are made during the bridge placement and/or pivot stage for a fixed CB-OB relationship, where only the angle to the pocket changes from one shot to the next? There are no perception differences among all of the possible shots between setups "A" and "B" in the diagram below (with a parallel and equal shift of both balls, maintaining the same distance between the CB and OB for all of the shots). Only the angle to the pocket is changing. Forget that the diagram doesn't show 3D perception. This is immaterial to my question. Just use the diagram to know where to put the balls on your table. Answer the question by shooting the shots (and observe what you do) at a real table. Forget the diagram ... it is for ball placement reference only!

If you think shifting your bridge hand was bad technique in your video, what do you and others suggest are good techniques for making the necessary adjustments? I know I'm probably sounding repetitive by now; but until we find simple answers to these simple questions, we can't begin to understand how 3D perception might come into play with more complicated questions.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Since we aim using our sight our perception of each object may be critical to understanding how any aiming system does or doesn't work. We aren't aiming at a ball that we see as equal size to the cue ball except when they are very close together.

However, when the CB and OB are a fixed distance apart, the visual perception of the CTE or 90/90 lines does not change as the angle to the pocket changes. That is the whole point of my simplified questions to get to the fundamental explanation of how any align&pivot system works (e.g., see my most recent post to Spidey). 3D perception has nothing to do with the question I am asking. The 3D perception is the exact same for all of the shots in question!!!

I am still looking forward to hearing or reading how different people adjust in the identical-perception scenario, where only the angle to the pocket is changing (even when it isn't changing very much).

Thanks,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The best answer I have read so far for this question (others can be found in the answer to the 2nd question here) was from Colin:

I wanted to make a post listing what I perceive to be the strongest advantages of these systems.

I think these advantages are the main reason players often find great success aiming and shooting this way.

1. Sighting point to point helps one to perceive an exact line and to take in the positions of the two balls relative to this line. In other words, they use a repeatable fixed method to visualize the ball positions.

2. These systems put you either right on line to begin with or in the ball park when used for appropriate shots.

3. In the pivot phase they move from this fixed line to another visual line that they perceive through the center of the CB. This finding of an aim line forces the mind to be decisive and exact. I believe forcing this decisiveness trains the mind not to wander and to make better decisions than just feeling around back and forth hoping to feel a ghost ball or contact point angle.

4. I suspect this one is the most powerful factor in these aiming methods. They force a player to commit to a pot line and then strike the cue dead straight through that line, rather than to swoop sideways on the shot as almost all beginners do. Because they focus hard on their pre-stroke alignment, they trust this line and stroke straight. If they do miss certain shots they will soon compensate with their aim until they learn to see the correct line.

The normal player very often aims thick on their cut angles and swoops a little to make the cuts. When they try to bring speed or english into those shots they meet with many difficulties. So using any system that forces a player to adopt strict and accurate pre-alignment, followed by a straight stroke, should meet with considerable success and consistancy after intensive practice.

5. Because players learn to trust their pre-alignment they begin to be able to relax during the actual stroke. This takes tension out of their arms and body and they can begin to execute with better speed and a more satisfactory feeling during execution. This may explain the feeling that they feel like they just pivot, bang and the ball goes in.

This is quite different to the normal play experience where there is a tendency to ride the ball into the hole. This occurs when players don't trust their alignment and tend to swoop a little to ride the cue ball to the correct point. This method of playing tends to make one have to work physically and mentally during the stroke. When pre-aligned well, the stroke is simply a matter of swinging the cue.

The only thing I don't agree with regarding these systems is that the systems find the aim line. I think it is the players that align themselves (via slight intuitive adjustments) to the correct aim line when need be. It will take them a little while to develop this ability for a wide range of shots.​

Do you or others have more to add about how the necessary adjustments are made during the bridge placement and/or pivot stage for a fixed CB-OB relationship, where only the angle to the pocket changes from one shot to the next? There are no perception differences among all of the possible shots between setups "A" and "B" in the diagram below (with a parallel and equal shift of both balls, maintaining the same distance between the CB and OB for all of the shots). Only the angle to the pocket is changing. Forget that the diagram doesn't show 3D perception. This is immaterial to my question. Just use the diagram to know where to put the balls on your table. Answer the question by shooting the shots (and observe what you do) at a real table. Forget the diagram ... it is for ball placement reference only!

If you think shifting your bridge hand was bad technique in your video, what do you and others suggest are good techniques for making the necessary adjustments? I know I'm probably sounding repetitive by now; but until we find simple answers to these simple questions, we can't begin to understand how 3D perception might come into play with more complicated questions.

Regards,
Dave

Shifting bridge a hair was bad. It's sloppy. You can just air-pivot and make any shot on the table with ease. I'll post a video of the first half of Colin's drill in a moment or two to demonstrate.

I've played with ghost ball. I've played with fractional aiming. I've played with pivot systems --- all of which for at least a year or two (ghost ball the longest - 10 years).

Ghost ball is so inferior to pivoting it's a laughable joke. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just stating.

What I'd like to see is all of the ghost ballers and all the pivot aimers do Colin's drill and post videos of themselves. Everyone who thinks ghost ball is the mac should look pretty impressive shooting Colin's shots.

If ghost ball is geometrically perfect and CTE/ETE systems are flawed to death, the pivot aimers are prob the weakest ball makers on the site, right? Let's see how consistent you are.

I'm DYYYYYYING to see how you ghost ballers make balls here on AZB. I know Cookie Man can't wait to post a video. I can't wait to post a video... a few others can't wait (they just need help w/ the encoding/posting). Yet, I don't see Dr. D or PJster rushing up to post your ball making video with ghost ball. Colin's drill is pretty tough on a 9' GC4 with smaller than 4.5" pockets. I just pivot them in like a joke.

I can't wait for this to upload so you can see all the "adjusting" *sigh*

PJ will say, "this doesn't mean anything other than Dave can make a ball."

I say, "BS - I shouldn't make ANY based on your diagrams! How can you ADJUST when your diagrams show me MISSING THE ENTIRE BALLLLL??? Let's see your video."

Anyways... this will be ready soon. Check out alllll my my tweaks, twists, turns, praying, and everything else I used to make the balls. Looking forward to seeing everyone else's video who posts in this thread. *lighting a cig, getting a beer*

Edit: Colin, this IS a good drill. Very varied. Good job.

 

[dr_dave]

Shifting bridge a hair was bad. It's sloppy. You can just air-pivot and make any shot on the table with ease.

Thank you for being clear. This is another method that can used to make pivot-based systems work: pivot in the air before placing your bridge hand down into the necessary line of aim for a center-ball hit. Obviously, the keys are pivoting the exact right amount (relative to the required "effective pivot point") for each specific shot so the the bridge hand is placed in the right spot to create the necessary aiming line to pocket the ball. You are obviously very good at this (with or without a bridge hand shift during or after the "pivot").

Thanks again,
Dave

 

[ShootingArts]

we can't start at the finish

Dave,

I agree that the perspective is always the same at the same distance. 2D and 3D are misleading terminology as either one can refer to any view. When looking at the top view, the way typical diagrams are created, the perceived scale of the balls is quite different than looking at the same arrangement of balls from the side view, the way we normally view them at the table.

When we are actually lining these shots up on the table, CTE is not actually center to edge since we see the further edge as being inside where it really is. Likewise a 90/90 sight line when the balls are far apart may be actually a 90/80 or 90/70 sight line. the only 100% true sight line is center to center. Since we are building these systems off of offset lines, shifts, and pivots, I do think it is necessary to place these lines accurately to begin with. I suggest that for any consideration of how an aiming system works, the cue ball and object ball must be drawn to the scale that they appear to be when we are at the table using the aiming system.

We can't correctly construct any geometric figure starting with incorrect construction elements. Likewise, we can't construct a geometric figure ignoring the early steps and trying to perform only the last step. It seems to me that both of these things are trying to be done in these discussions. I appreciate that you are trying to solve one step in the equation but it can be impossible to solve one step without solving prior steps first. Your diagram construction is based on assumptions and it seems there is an error in those assumptions since we have a conflict between theoretical results and empirical results. In years in R&D I never found the empirical results to be what were in error once the testing was debugged.

We all know that if we arrive at the exact same alignment on multiple shots and shoot them the same way we will get the same results. Therefore it is a given that if a system works for multiple shot angles the alignment isn't the same. The mechanical pivot to the center of the cue ball using a bridge of the same length is basically a dead issue. If we start with the the same offset, pivot on the same vertex, and pivot to the center point on the cue ball we are going to get the same result. Whatever makes a system work seems to happen before any mechanical pivot at the bridge.

Hu

However, when the CB and OB are a fixed distance apart, the visual perception of the CTE or 90/90 lines does not change as the angle to the pocket changes. That is the whole point of my simplified questions to get to the fundamental explanation of how any align&pivot system works (e.g., see my most recent post to Spidey). 3D perception has nothing to do with the question I am asking. The 3D perception is the exact same for all of the shots in question!!!

I am still looking forward to hearing or reading how different people adjust in the identical-perception scenario, where only the angle to the pocket is changing (even when it isn't changing very much).

Thanks,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

We all know that if we arrive at the exact same alignment on multiple shots and shoot them the same way we will get the same results. Therefore it is a given that if a system works for multiple shot angles the alignment isn't the same. The mechanical pivot to the center of the cue ball using a bridge of the same length is basically a dead issue. If we start with the the same offset, pivot on the same vertex, and pivot to the center point on the cue ball we are going to get the same result.

I agree 100%, but we have not heard agreement from all of the system proponents and believers on this topic (IMO).

BTW, the points you are making here are the exact points made by the collection of diagrams in my articles which started all of this stink in the first place.

Whatever makes a system work seems to happen before any mechanical pivot at the bridge.

This is true for the air-pivot people who place the bridge hand at a different place for different shots with the same initial alignment. It is not true for the people who shift or deform their bridge hand during an on-table pivot. Otherwise, I completely agree with the points you are making here.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[ShootingArts]

speculation here

I agree 100%, but we have not heard agreement from all of the system proponents and believers on this topic (IMO).

BTW, the points you are making here are the exact points made by the collection of diagrams in my articles which started all of this stink in the first place.

This is true for the air-pivot people who place the bridge hand at a different place for different shots with the same initial alignment. It is not true for the people who shift or deform their bridge hand during an on-table pivot. Otherwise, I completely agree with the points you are making here.

Thanks,
Dave

Dave,

I think the real shift is between two different lines, the reference line and the aim line for lack of better terminology at the moment. I think the people who shift or deform their hand during the on table pivot are correcting for prior error. With a very close bridge there may need to be some shifting of the hand for comfort and to maintain a secure bridge but it should not be necessary as a part of a system. If it is, according to my understanding the system has failed.

Hu

 

[dr_dave]

I think the real shift is between two different lines, the reference line and the aim line for lack of better terminology at the moment. I think the people who shift or deform their hand during the on table pivot are correcting for prior error. With a very close bridge there may need to be some shifting of the hand for comfort and to maintain a secure bridge but it should not be necessary as a part of a system. If it is, according to my understanding the system has failed.

Agreed.

Regardless, the one truth that can't be avoided is: the bridge hand support, which guides the cue during the final stroke, must be in certain location (after all of the aligning, pivoting, and any other aim adjustment) to be able to make a ball. If you are pivoting "in-air" or shifting your bridge during an "on-table" pivot, the key is having a good "feel" for how to pivot or how much to shift for each individual shot (at all angles to the pocket). Many people are good at this, and some are not.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Colin's Drill - Air pivoting

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8312487248327533414&hl=en

I can't wait to see everyone else's video.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The best answer I have read so far for this question (others can be found in the answer to the 2nd question here) was from Colin:

Dave,
I'm adding a possible advanatage no.6 which I think may be relevant to this list. See below.

I wanted to make a post listing what I perceive to be the strongest advantages of these systems.

I think these advantages are the main reason players often find great success aiming and shooting this way.

1. Sighting point to point helps one to perceive an exact line and to take in the positions of the two balls relative to this line. In other words, they use a repeatable fixed method to visualize the ball positions.

2. These systems put you either right on line to begin with or in the ball park when used for appropriate shots.

3. In the pivot phase they move from this fixed line to another visual line that they perceive through the center of the CB. This finding of an aim line forces the mind to be decisive and exact. I believe forcing this decisiveness trains the mind not to wander and to make better decisions than just feeling around back and forth hoping to feel a ghost ball or contact point angle.

4. I suspect this one is the most powerful factor in these aiming methods. They force a player to commit to a pot line and then strike the cue dead straight through that line, rather than to swoop sideways on the shot as almost all beginners do. Because they focus hard on their pre-stroke alignment, they trust this line and stroke straight. If they do miss certain shots they will soon compensate with their aim until they learn to see the correct line.

The normal player very often aims thick on their cut angles and swoops a little to make the cuts. When they try to bring speed or english into those shots they meet with many difficulties. So using any system that forces a player to adopt strict and accurate pre-alignment, followed by a straight stroke, should meet with considerable success and consistancy after intensive practice.

5. Because players learn to trust their pre-alignment they begin to be able to relax during the actual stroke. This takes tension out of their arms and body and they can begin to execute with better speed and a more satisfactory feeling during execution. This may explain the feeling that they feel like they just pivot, bang and the ball goes in.

This is quite different to the normal play experience where there is a tendency to ride the ball into the hole. This occurs when players don't trust their alignment and tend to swoop a little to ride the cue ball to the correct point. This method of playing tends to make one have to work physically and mentally during the stroke. When pre-aligned well, the stroke is simply a matter of swinging the cue.

6. A system that requires a focus on the positioning of the cue may cause the player to be more highly aware of the line of cue. In standard aiming, some players may glance a little at the tip and CB but be mainly focused at the OB and therefore not getting much visual feedback from their cue, which is a straight line guide waiting to be used. Also, this cue position awareness may lead to a more constant positioning of the eyes over the cue.

The only thing I don't agree with regarding these systems is that the systems find the aim line. I think it is the players that align themselves (via slight intuitive adjustments) to the correct aim line when need be. It will take them a little while to develop this ability for a wide range of shots.​

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8312487248327533414&hl=en

I can't wait to see everyone else's video.

Dave,
Are you trying to make Mike Sigel and Efren, from the IPT King of the Hill final look bad? lol

Damn fine shooting. 15/16 (Official Score). I know you re-shot the spot shot and made it after the first brain fade. Good to know you're human.

So 15/16 would translate to 75/80 or about 95% if you could keep that up for the long version of the test which is 5 pots into each pocket and all those same shots played into the opposite corner.

I reckon any top pro would think himself in top shape if he potted like that in his pre-match warm up.

I do fear you'll scare everyone away from the test making it look that easy

A couple of observations:
1. You seem to like medium speed stun for a few of those longer shots. Do you play these with a hair of OE? (Because they create significant CIT). If not, do you ever notice that you tend to overcut those same shots when you hit them with follow or a lot of draw?

2. I did notice a little outside swoop at 12.25. This indicates that you are taking in where you feel the OB is headed and adjusting sometimes. That shot actually was over cut a little which probably means the swoop took it off a better line. - so cut that out... *waves finger* ;-)

I also noticed a couple of times, such as your last shot, that you poked a bit hesitantly, a little stiff, so it seems there's still a little self doubt about either the alignment or the stroke. (Thank god your human).

I don't say that to pick on you, I just see that if you work that out of your game it will do wonders for your positional play. Nothing destroys positional play more than a tense stroke.

Anyway, great shooting. Most of those shots make a top player think twice looking for an easier option. Knocking in 16/17 with the camera on is bloody impressive.

I'll be happy with 12/16 or 60/80. Waiting for some badly bruised ribs to feel better so don't rush me

Colin