diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Cornerman said:
This is obvious to me and you, but it isn't always obvious to some of the people who make sometimes-outrageous claims about some aiming systems, hence my articles.Cornerman said:
Now we are getting somewhere, IMO. One line of aim is not enough, and 5 or 6 are too many to discern for most people, and even 5 or 6 lines are still not enough to make all shots over a wide range of angles (per page 2 of my November '08 article). Based on my understanding, the CTE and 90/90 systems seem to suggest one alignment for a fairly wide range of shots. So my question still remains:Cornerman said:
How do people that use CTE, 90/90, and other "align&pivot systems" change their aim (i.e., what do they do during the bridge placement and/or pivot step?) for different shots when the CB-OB relationship is the same for those shots (i.e., the CB and OB are just being shifted slightly, and together, so only the required angle to the pocket is different)?
From Spidey's video (more info can be found here), it was clear he adjusts his aim by shifting the top of his bridge hand during the "pivot," but Ron has suggested the bridge hand should remain stable and fixed during the "pivot." I am not bringing this up to be argumentative ... I truly want to know what is recommended to make the systems work, realizing that no one method will be best for all people. I just want to know some of the methods recommended and used by various people.
My additional question to you (Fred), concerning the systems you use, is:
Approximately how many different reference lines of aim do you use for cut shots to the left as shown in the diagram, and how do you make adjustments as you gradually change from one reference to another (e.g., when shifting the CB and OB without changing the CB-OB relationship for all points between shot "A" and shot "B" in the diagram), or do you just do all of this by feel?
IMO, simple answers to these questions can quickly settle this whole debate. I know the systems work; therefore, there must be reasonable answers to these questions. I just haven't heard or read them yet, IMO.
Respectfully,
Dave
Spidey,
For now, I suggest we stick to the case where the CB-OB relationship is fixed (so there are no perception differences between one shot and another), and only the angle to the pocket is different. I'm not trying to avoid your questions, I'm just trying to get answers to simpler questions first. Please read and respond to my reply to Fred.
Thanks,
Dave
For now, I suggest we stick to the case where the CB-OB relationship is fixed (so there are no perception differences between one shot and another), and only the angle to the pocket is different. I'm not trying to avoid your questions, I'm just trying to get answers to simpler questions first. Please read and respond to my reply to Fred.
Thanks,
Dave
SpiderWebComm said:
Dr. Dave -
I honestly believe depth perception / ball size visualization is the heart of the matter. But if you need other questions answered first, go ahead. Humans dont see balls as you display them in cuetable diagrams.
Someday someone will model this properly in 3D and it will be a happy day- regardless of the outcome - because it will be modeled the right way for the first time.
Dave
P.S. Assume you're sighting the right edge of an OB....as the distance increases your vision shifts to the left to compensate for the smaller ball. Am I wrong?
I honestly believe depth perception / ball size visualization is the heart of the matter. But if you need other questions answered first, go ahead. Humans dont see balls as you display them in cuetable diagrams.
Someday someone will model this properly in 3D and it will be a happy day- regardless of the outcome - because it will be modeled the right way for the first time.
Dave
P.S. Assume you're sighting the right edge of an OB....as the distance increases your vision shifts to the left to compensate for the smaller ball. Am I wrong?
Last edited:
Admittedly, the diagrams and discussion here are not easy to follow if you are new to this debate. If you want to understand the diagrams better, I describe them fairly well (IMO) in my Novemeber '08 and December '08 articles. I also have many of other resources (descriptions, images, videos, postings) related to the systems here:Beware_of_Dawg said:
I hope some of that stuff is of interest and maybe even helpful.
Regards,
Dave
This might be the case for some situations, but it is not the case for the questions I am asking here, where the 3D and 2D CB-OB distance and relationship is the exact same for all of the shots. Please read the post and try to respond to the simple questions. I promise I will come back to the 3D perception issue later after we better understand the more simple questions and answers.SpiderWebComm said:
Thanks,
Dave
SpiderWebComm said:
Hey, just because we're not responding doesn't mean we're not paying attention. I have spent a lot of time thinking about perception. I think it is interesting and important, but I think it's a separate issue from what's we're discussing here.
Perception is a funny beast too. Think of this example. A generation of pool players grew up hearing Ray Martin's advice from 99 Critical shots: to make a frozen-to-the-rail ball, hit the ball and cushion at the same time. Now this advice is just plain wrong. If you actually do this you miss most rail shots. When you talk to good players of that vintage though, many will swear on this advice and will fire in balls down the rail to boot. How can that be?
Here's the deal. These guys internalized Ray Martin's notion. Then, at the table, they shoot the shot until they get it right (hitting the cushion first). But instead of altering their notion of what's required to get it right, they alter their perception of what hitting ball and cushion at the same time looks like.
[...]
Sometimes I get the impression people think us technical guys never get to the table and never pay attention to the advice and wisdom of people from the other 11 dimensions. For the record, I've spent plenty of time talking to Hal on the phone and plenty of time at the table with Hal. Hal and I were at Danny K's near LA for an entire day back in 1999 or so. Then a few years after that I spent time with him again at Family Billiards in SF. Hal is a character and is a fun guy to know.
You and Fred keep bringing this up, but without any explanation. I guess you're saying that the difference between 2D and 3D views somehow explains how the CTE system can work without "adjustments"? If so, please explain how that works at least enough so we have some reason to pay any attention to the idea. "It looks different" doesn't do it for me.
pj
chgo
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.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
This is an excellent example of why "demonstrating it at the table" really demonstrates nothing. I'm reminded (again) of Spiderdave's videos in which he thought he was "demonstrating" how pivoting works - all he really demonstrated is that he can make it work... somehow.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick,Patrick Johnson said:
Please try to keep a respectful tone. I agree with your ideas in concept, but the disrespectful tone might cause us to get "distracted" again. I hope Spidey and others don't take offense at your tone. We want more fruitful discussion, not more emotional "flame wars."
I personally was very grateful to Spidey for "putting himself out there" by publicly posting his video for discussion. I thought it lead to some important and useful debate. It became clear that he was shifting the top of his bridge hand to create an effective pivot point different from the pivot implied by his initial bridge-hand placement. That was useful to understand how he makes the systems work for him. He is a great shooter with great aim, so he is probably able to make these adjustments totally intuitively, maybe without even knowing he is doing it.
Regards,
Dave
dr_dave said:
Wow this respect stuff is hard work.
While I agree with the concept, I personally (Dave, you're a brilliant authority on pool and a really good-looking guy.) didn't see (I would like to have a baby with you) anything disrespectful about Patrick's post.
How'd I do?
dr_dave said:
No personal disrespect was intended - but I did intend to express "disrespect" for the assertion (which we're hearing more and more often) that in-person and video "demonstrations" are the only way to know how these systems really work. I want to address this mistaken idea directly and clearly.
Given our history Spiderdave might take offense at being named and contradicted, but his videos have been specifically cited more than once as paradigms of "demonstration", and this is one of those cases where I'd rather be clear than oversensitive.
pj
chgo
mikepage said:
LOL. You (are at least as knowledgable and good looking as Dave, but can we put the babies off for now?) took the words right out of my mouth.
pj
chgo
Patrick,
I admit that I was suggesting a ridiculous amount of sensitivity in my previous post; but given the "history" and "baggage" between you guys, a little sensitivity and gentleness might help prevent another useless and embarrassing flame war.
I guess having a psychologist as a first wife made me think (and feel ???) about this sort of thing more than I would normally care to. I am certainly no "authority" in the feelings arena, but I bet my ex would be proud of me for trying. :embarrassed2:
Regards,
Dave
I admit that I was suggesting a ridiculous amount of sensitivity in my previous post; but given the "history" and "baggage" between you guys, a little sensitivity and gentleness might help prevent another useless and embarrassing flame war.
I guess having a psychologist as a first wife made me think (and feel ???) about this sort of thing more than I would normally care to. I am certainly no "authority" in the feelings arena, but I bet my ex would be proud of me for trying. :embarrassed2:
Regards,
Dave
Patrick Johnson said:
I think you have to at least go to a table and try the system.Patrick Johnson said:
I hav been wanting to learn to play the violin
I have been wanting to learn to play the violin. I have read pages and pages of how people claim they play the violin but it just doesn't work for me. I think that they are making changes and adjustments that they either won't admit to or don't realize they are making themselves.
If anyone could direct me to the real scoop that will let me read and look at diagrams and be able to make beautiful music on a violin I would much appreciate it. My playing sounds a lot like a cat with it's tail caught in an old wringer washing machine.
Hu
I have been wanting to learn to play the violin. I have read pages and pages of how people claim they play the violin but it just doesn't work for me. I think that they are making changes and adjustments that they either won't admit to or don't realize they are making themselves.
If anyone could direct me to the real scoop that will let me read and look at diagrams and be able to make beautiful music on a violin I would much appreciate it. My playing sounds a lot like a cat with it's tail caught in an old wringer washing machine.
Hu
Patrick Johnson said:
Sorry, but nothing beats raw talent (e.g., a great "ear," hand dexterity, and great touch) and tens of thousands of hours of quality practice time.ShootingArts said:
For people who have followed the debates, that last sentence might sound familiar.
Regards,
Dave
Playing the violin isn't the topic; playing "Pivoting Aiming" on the violin is the topic. Surely you've seen sheet music...?
pj
chgo