diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems

[shinigami]

I think we ought to ease up on aiming threads for a while because everyone of them turns into a pissing thread.

Dr.Dave started this new thread with the best of intentions and it still turned out this way~

Let the feelers shoot their way, and let the system users shoot their way. If you don't like the system fine. If you want to take a few minutes and learn the system, then that's fine too. If you feel like analyzing the system to see what makes it work/not work fine. Whatever floats your boat.

But, don't pee on somebody else's thread.

 

[mikepage]

If their not getting the system to work maybe a video of them will help us explain what they are doing wrong!!1

Yeah, in principle I suppose that's true. But instead of trying to discern from a video whether a person is lining up the middle or the right edge of a tip for an edge of a ball or is pivoting about a point two inches away from where they're supposed to (things pretty hard to determine from watching someone, imo), I'd rather see described in unambiguous detail what they're SUPPOSED to do.

Seems to me if you could FIX it by observing when someone is doing it wrong, you could have described it correctly in the first place.

 

[cookie man]

Yeah, in principle I suppose that's true. But instead of trying to discern from a video whether a person is lining up the middle or the right edge of a tip for an edge of a ball or is pivoting about a point two inches away from where they're supposed to (things pretty hard to determine from watching someone, imo), I'd rather see described in unambiguous detail what they're SUPPOSED to do.

Seems to me if you could FIX it by observing when someone is doing it wrong, you could have described it correctly in the first place.

Just trying a different avenue to get things moving along. We've been stuck explaining for about 6 months now.

 

[ShootingArts]

disowning your diagram?

pj,

2D and 3D views are identical for sighting ball edges, in the same view. When you change from a top view to a side view it doesn't matter if you are working in 2D or 3D, the perception is far different. When aiming we are aiming at what we perceive, not necessarily what is there. Looking down a straight road or a straight set of railroad tracks the lines converge. The lines on a real pool table do exactly the same thing to a lesser degree. We can't change our perceptional view.

I don't have to grasp at straws because I don't endorse or deny the value of any system. I do see flawed investigative techniques and the classic claim that anything someone doesn't understand is all in the other person's head. That is proven false the vast majority of the time in all research when groups of people are claiming the same thing.

All of the above frustrates me a little because if there is any benefit to be gained I would like to learn from these systems. Dr. Dave's idea of sorting out one step at a time is great, except you have to start at the first step, not the last.

The systems are working for enough people that I find it impossible to buy that all of the systems are based on mass hallucination.

Hu

I said "2D and 3D views are identical for sighting ball edges." My drawing shows that to be true.

When you sight from the right edge of the CB to the right edge of an OB you're sighting along one line, not two or three. The right edge of a second OB, farther away than the first one, will be on the same straight sight line, as illustrated in my diagram. That's the relevant line when using CTE - the converging lines through the centers or left edges of the balls are irrelevant.



No, I'm afraid it doesn't, Hu. Your statement shows that you misunderstood what I said.



What difference does it make? That's the question. The only specific claim about it has been shown to be wrong by my drawing. What reason do you have that it might make any difference?



So what? You're clutching at straws. That means to me that you're not looking at this objectively; you want a certain outcome. Why?

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

two problems

That's fine. The people with more knowledge should try to help out the diagrammer so that he can generate a new diagram that is faithful to the prescription.

Mike,

There are two problems with your common sense suggestion. First the people who created the diagrams don't acknowledge that there is any flaw in them and secondly the truly knowledgeable people aren't getting into losing battles on internet forums. For example, Hal is very widely respected by some very knowledgeable people in the pool world. On AZB I suspect most view him as little more than a crackpot.

I have worked with the systems on a pool table several times and was able to establish that they had the potential to work. Without complete information I have no way to test if they do work or not. Of some interest, I introduced someone who used CTE to the 90-90 system as described on this forum and he instantly started pocketing a fairly tough shot consistently using it.

Unlike most here, I have made my living in R&D. That makes me very slow to make absolute statements about anything. Unless I have adequate starting data I can only reach tentative conclusions at best. So many things are unknown or ignored in these threads that conclusions are of little or no value. I keep hoping for some enlightenment but inevitably assumptions are made and discussion goes out the window.

Hu

 

[Jal]

................

 

[SpiderWebComm]

.....................................

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Looking down a straight road or a straight set of railroad tracks the lines converge. The lines on a real pool table do exactly the same thing to a lesser degree. We can't change our perceptional view.

Let's take this step by step:

1. My diagram is in response to Spiderdave's question about sighting from the edge of the CB to the edge of the OB.

2. Sighting from the edge of the CB to the edge of the OB involves only one line. There are no other lines to consider.

3. A single line does not converge. Only multiple lines converge.

4. Convergence is not relevant to Spiderdave's question or to sighting CB-OB edges.

Spiderdave tried to come up with a concrete example of how the difference between 2D diagrams and the 3D "live view" might explain how aim adjustments could be "automatic" when pivoting, but he was unsuccessful. If you think you can come up with a concrete example, please let us know. Until then, "3D is different from 2D" is meaningless to this discussion.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

the people who created the diagrams don't acknowledge that there is any flaw in them

Point out an unacknowledged flaw.

pj
chgo

 

[Joe T]

Here?s where I think the conversation should go with both sides compromising slightly to come to a helpful conclusion.

There are some pretty amazing methods of aim that may also help you align better. They are known as (whatever you guys choose to list) and they work like this (please explain them in as much detail as possible). You go thru the steps of approach and then the tech guys can say ?and right at this point we believe there?s a little personal feel or perception that takes over but it?s a lot less feel than having no starting point at all?.

I?ve messed with them a little but still would like to get with Stan to learn the pro 1 to see if that decreases the feel part more. I?m a pretty experienced shooter and I can tell if an adjustment is needed or if I?m subconsciously making one.

If the conversation goes like this we could probably get more people to try them, spend less time arguing about them and my personal favorite would be that they wouldn?t be being sold as magic bullets but known as fantastic starting or reference points that can help speed up your aiming process and make you a more consistent player. That?s the problem I?ve always had with Hal, he tries to sell the system, down play other methods and will say just about anything bad about another person to get you to BELIEVE. And I don?t want to hear about he?s getting old and sick; he was doing this when I first talked to him around 7yrs ago. I do wish him the best with the health and also wish he would do his best to help us spread the word of these useful methods by teaching us how rather than how not.

In closing we should also state that Joe Tuckers aiming method is the best bar none lol Seriously I know mine isn?t the best for everyone but I do believe one thing about my method that most other methods don?t offer. My numbered contact points are also a huge asset when it comes to position play, caroms, combos, safeties & kicks because of the exact mathematical answers they give you about the true tangent lines. Hopefully I?ll get around to that instructional video someday.

If this is not a good way for our discussion to end or form please tell me why so I can blend that into my thinking.

 

[Jal]

Jim:

Cute. I would agree with your sarcasm except that these guys don't REAAALLY want to find out why they work. If they did, they'd learn and practice these systems for a month or two and then report back on results, adjustments, how they get them to work, etc.

Hell, PJ refuses to try any of them.

So, although it's cute, the point is.... they lean, push/prod in the direction of them not working with no intent of learning the 'how.'

Interrogating users on here without practical application makes the word "learning" and phrase "find out" a joke.

Cute little post though.
Dave

Sorry for the sarcasm, Dave. As you can see, I deleted it, just not in time.

But it does illustrate something. What, I don't know?

Jim

 

[ShootingArts]

already have pointed out multiple flaws

Point out an unacknowledged flaw.

pj
chgo

pj,

I have already pointed out multiple flaws repeatedly. One reason these threads get bogged down is your insistence on being told the same thing over and over. Go back and read my posts if you want your answer.

Having to explain everything to you as to a small child tries the patience of anyone trying to make you understand anything. Then if a dim light does shine you deny it or shift your position and claim that is what you were saying all along. You are the primary hindrance to coherent discourse in these threads.

Hu

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Sorry for the sarcasm, Dave. As you can see, I deleted it, just not in time.

But it does illustrate something. What, I don't know?

Jim

I deleted it.

 

[mikepage]

Here?s where I think the conversation should go with both sides compromising slightly to come to a helpful conclusion.

There are some pretty amazing methods of aim that may also help you align better. They are known as (whatever you guys choose to list) and they work like this (please explain them in as much detail as possible). You go thru the steps of approach and then the tech guys can say ?and right at this point we believe there?s a little personal feel or perception that takes over but it?s a lot less feel than having no starting point at all?.

I?ve messed with them a little but still would like to get with Stan to learn the pro 1 to see if that decreases the feel part more. I?m a pretty experienced shooter and I can tell if an adjustment is needed or if I?m subconsciously making one.

If the conversation goes like this we could probably get more people to try them, spend less time arguing about them and my personal favorite would be that they wouldn?t be being sold as magic bullets but known as fantastic starting or reference points that can help speed up your aiming process and make you a more consistent player. That?s the problem I?ve always had with Hal, he tries to sell the system, down play other methods and will say just about anything bad about another person to get you to BELIEVE. And I don?t want to hear about he?s getting old and sick; he was doing this when I first talked to him around 7yrs ago. I do wish him the best with the health and also wish he would do his best to help us spread the word of these useful methods by teaching us how rather than how not.

In closing we should also state that Joe Tuckers aiming method is the best bar none lol Seriously I know mine isn?t the best for everyone but I do believe one thing about my method that most other methods don?t offer. My numbered contact points are also a huge asset when it comes to position play, caroms, combos, safeties & kicks because of the exact mathematical answers they give you about the true tangent lines. Hopefully I?ll get around to that instructional video someday.

If this is not a good way for our discussion to end or form please tell me why so I can blend that into my thinking.

I agree with you Joe. I like this approach. It's just that I frankly don't see where it's different from what Pat and Colin and Dave A. and me and a few others have been advocating all along.

 

[ShootingArts]

"feel"

Joe,

Looking at your Aiming by Numbers ball it seems you have broken it down into many divisions. Some testing with software awhile back indicated to me that we should be able to make over 90% of the shots in a real pool game with a total of thirteen or fifteen divisions, one center ball and six or seven on each side. This was of course ignoring throw which has to be compensated for regardless.

So the seventy-five cent question: If a person can hit the points you indicate, not aim at them as that brings up a lot more issues, are the angles geometrically correct to pocket balls? Ignoring spin and throw, does a player still need to adjust the aim by feel?

One of the many things overlooked in the discussion of the success percentage of any system is that we are not considering any possible shot on the table for most of our shots in actual play. We have deliberately played shape to have a comparatively easy shot. The better we play shape the better any system or no system at all works.

Hu

Here?s where I think the conversation should go with both sides compromising slightly to come to a helpful conclusion.

There are some pretty amazing methods of aim that may also help you align better. They are known as (whatever you guys choose to list) and they work like this (please explain them in as much detail as possible). You go thru the steps of approach and then the tech guys can say ?and right at this point we believe there?s a little personal feel or perception that takes over but it?s a lot less feel than having no starting point at all?.

I?ve messed with them a little but still would like to get with Stan to learn the pro 1 to see if that decreases the feel part more. I?m a pretty experienced shooter and I can tell if an adjustment is needed or if I?m subconsciously making one.

If the conversation goes like this we could probably get more people to try them, spend less time arguing about them and my personal favorite would be that they wouldn?t be being sold as magic bullets but known as fantastic starting or reference points that can help speed up your aiming process and make you a more consistent player. That?s the problem I?ve always had with Hal, he tries to sell the system, down play other methods and will say just about anything bad about another person to get you to BELIEVE. And I don?t want to hear about he?s getting old and sick; he was doing this when I first talked to him around 7yrs ago. I do wish him the best with the health and also wish he would do his best to help us spread the word of these useful methods by teaching us how rather than how not.

In closing we should also state that Joe Tuckers aiming method is the best bar none lol Seriously I know mine isn?t the best for everyone but I do believe one thing about my method that most other methods don?t offer. My numbered contact points are also a huge asset when it comes to position play, caroms, combos, safeties & kicks because of the exact mathematical answers they give you about the true tangent lines. Hopefully I?ll get around to that instructional video someday.

If this is not a good way for our discussion to end or form please tell me why so I can blend that into my thinking.

 

[Joe T]

Joe,

Looking at your Aiming by Numbers ball it seems you have broken it down into many divisions. Some testing with software awhile back indicated to me that we should be able to make over 90% of the shots in a real pool game with a total of thirteen or fifteen divisions, one center ball and six or seven on each side. This was of course ignoring throw which has to be compensated for regardless.

So the seventy-five cent question: If a person can hit the points you indicate, not aim at them as that brings up a lot more issues, are the angles geometrically correct to pocket balls? Ignoring spin and throw, does a player still need to adjust the aim by feel?

One of the many things overlooked in the discussion of the success percentage of any system is that we are not considering any possible shot on the table for most of our shots in actual play. We have deliberately played shape to have a comparatively easy shot. The better we play shape the better any system or no system at all works.

Hu

Hu I'm uploading a Colin session right now (and I ain't to proud of it) and while I do not go into detail about my aiming system I believe you'll be able to see how it works and if you don't I will answer all questions. And to answer your first, yes it does require feel but it also gives you the answer to what it is you're feeling which is the front of the cue ball.

 

[mikepage]

Mike,

There are two problems with your common sense suggestion. First the people who created the diagrams don't acknowledge that there is any flaw in them [...]

I just don't see this. Sure if someone just says, "that's wrong," the diagrammer has no information about how to fix it. But these guys are sincere about trying to understand. Tell them how the technique really works, and I'm sure they'd be happy to fix the diagram.

and secondly the truly knowledgeable people aren't getting into losing battles on internet forums.

Yes I agree. Bob Jewett and Joe Tucker are probably among the few most knowledgeable people on the planet about aiming systems. Bob hasn't even whispered hello. Joe's popped in briefly, but he seems to know better than to engage people.

For example, Hal is very widely respected by some very knowledgeable people in the pool world. On AZB I suspect most view him as little more than a crackpot.

I've worked with Hal at the table. I've talked to him many times about aiming & pivoting and the like. Hal is a nice guy.

 

[Joe T]

I agree with you Joe. I like this approach. It's just that I frankly don't see where it's different from what Pat and Colin and Dave A. and me and a few others have been advocating all along.

Hey Mike, I agree that is has been said before but maybe we just lost track?. I think if we could get a quote from most of us from what we firmly believe about each method presented we might be able to make more positive progress?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I have already pointed out multiple flaws repeatedly.

Like the flaw in my 3D diagram that you pointed out in this thread? You saying you've pointed out flaws isn't very convincing.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Hey Mike, I agree that is has been said before but maybe we just lost track?. I think if we could get a quote from most of us from what we firmly believe about each method presented we might be able to make more positive progress?

I have been compiling what I consider are the major highlights, from numerous sources, for each method, here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html​

under "aiming systems," "CTE," and "90/90." If you post or send me a description of your system with some diagrams (or provide a link to an exiting description), I would be happy to add it to my resource page.

I still think the best post related to all of the systems is 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 consistency 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.

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.

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.​

To me, the last paragraph (which I have bolded), is what we have been trying to understand better with all of the diagrams, videos, articles, and online "debates." I think we have made lots of progress in the last few weeks explaining how different people "adjust" during the "pivot" from the reference alignment to the required line of aim for different but similar shots. The aiming systems are obviously not "magic bullets" to make people better at "aiming," but they do provide good "frameworks" and "routines" that are helpful to many people based on Colin's positives above.

Regards,
Dave