diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems

[lfigueroa]

That somebody might see two half ball hits as different shots when they're located at different places on the table is a new idea to me, but it sounds plausible, and maybe it's related to a more general idea I have about the usefulness of systems.

I think systems help generally by "organizing" aiming for shooters: dividing shots up into categories, giving step-by-step instructions for aligning the stick and balls, etc. This makes aiming a learnable process rather than an amorphous, undefined "challenge" - something that shooters can believe they're capable of mastering and approach with more confidence.

In a sense, aiming systems show shooters the "light at the end of the tunnel" so they can approach the journey through the tunnel with a more positive and productive mindset (and with fewer distractions from uncertainty).

I'm not saying this is the only thing systems do for shooters, but I think it's a fundamental benefit of systems that may underpin other benefits.

pj
chgo

(By the way, I like the word "benefits" better than "advantages" because it doesn't imply that systems are the only or best source for these things.)

If you go from no system, to a system, you're probably going to be better off. You might even think the system "works." But as PJ points out, it just helped you get organized.

From long ago:

My 2 cents

While I don't subscribe to the idea that Hal's system is as definitive
as some have described, I do believe it could be a huge help to some.

I believe that anything that helps you increase your precision and
decrease the variables in how you approach the game is a plus. Sooooo
if you use a system, such as Hal's, that helps you zero in on your
objective -- a precise hit on the object ball -- more power to you.

To me, it's sort of like someone saying there are only three points on
the vertical axis of the cue ball that you need to know for draw shots.
Well, somewhat obviously, there are more, or if you prefer, an
infinite number of hits on the cue ball to execute a draw shot. But, if
formerly you were a player that executed your draw shot by "hitting the
ball below center," using this magical "Three Point System" would
dramatically increase your draw shot precision. And, by establishing
these reference points, you can learn additional ones.

The only problem I have with Hal's system, as describe here, is that it
seems to claim there are just a handful of hits to learn. That's just
not so. But in any case, for the right level of player, I think it
could be a powerful tool.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Colin Colenso]

If he hadn't have had a loss of focus on one shot, he would have been 100%. Most impressive to say the least! Joe Tucker knows his aiming system better than anyone and he shoots 63 and 66%.

Just to clarify, Joe shot 66 and then 63 out of 80, which is about 79 and 82%, while Spidey shot 15 from 16 = ~94%

I'll be extremely impressed if Spidey could do the whole test and maintain over 90%. It's easy to lose focus for a few shots here and there as Joe did, probably due to lack of recent practice. I'd imagine Joe would shoot high 80s when he's tournament ready.

Not to take anything away from Spidey's shooting. He looks to be seeing the aimline with more ease than Joe at the moment and that is something that ought to turn a few heads. I still want to see him run the whole test to see the stability and consistancy he has developed with that method. I don't think he got lucky to get 15/16. I just expect him to have a few human aiming moments. If he doesn't, I want him tested for batteries.

Colin

 

[JB Cases]

oh, good grief, John. You won the 1pocket because you splashed the stack a couple of times -- missing the ball you were *aiming* at -- and getting away with it in cold blood.

I dan't know what happen with Deno.

Lou Figueroa

True - BUT I still had to make 8 balls SOMEHOW and it was satisfying to pocket the balls I did make using Hal's methods against one of the guys who was going after me so hard for touting them.

You have to admit that there is a little irony that I won against the two biggest detractors of Hal's systems. Well at least the ones at the time who were on my ass the most about it.

Would you KILL me if we played 1 Hole - then definitely - now not as easily. I am STILL in AWE of your stop shot ability. No one stops the rock like you do.

 

[dr_dave]

... Not to take anything away from Spidey's shooting. He looks to be seeing the aimline with more ease than Joe at the moment ...

I was also very impressed with Spidey's success in the video. I knew he was a great shot maker, but now I'm even more impressed. I would expect that he could do well with any or no "aiming system;" although, I know he has told us CTE and 90/90 have made a difference for him.

Hopefully Spidey can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would bet that when he is down on a shot, regardless of whatever system he uses to get there, he can tell if the shot has a chance or going or not (i.e., I bet he can "see" if the aim is good or not). If the aim is not good, I bet he can make micro adjustments (or get up and reload) before shooting so the aim is good. If that is the case, then I don't think he really needs an "aiming system." He just needs to align himself with the desired aiming line (while standing up), drop down into his stance while keeping the cue aligned with the aiming line, and make micro-adjustments if necessary while down on the shot. Then he shoots, and the ball goes in the hole. Maybe the "systems" he uses might help him do all of this. I just think he has great eyesight, great visualization skills, and lots of successful practice and experience under his belt. He is certainly a better shot maker than I would ever hope to be, with any or no "system."

Regards,
Dave

 

[mikepage]

True - BUT I still had to make 8 balls SOMEHOW and it was satisfying to pocket the balls I did make using Hal's methods against one of the guys who was going after me so hard for touting them.

You have to admit that there is a little irony that I won against the two biggest detractors of Hal's systems. Well at least the ones at the time who were on my ass the most about it.[...]

Hey, those weren't the ONLY two detractors you played after seeing the light!

(feeling a little left out)

 

[Colin Colenso]

That somebody might see two half ball hits as different shots when they're located at different places on the table is a new idea to me, but it sounds plausible, and maybe it's related to a more general idea I have about the usefulness of systems.

I think systems help generally by "organizing" aiming for shooters: dividing shots up into categories, giving step-by-step instructions for aligning the stick and balls, etc. This makes aiming a learnable process rather than an amorphous, undefined "challenge" - something that shooters can believe they're capable of mastering and approach with more confidence.

In a sense, aiming systems show shooters the "light at the end of the tunnel" so they can approach the journey through the tunnel with a more positive and productive mindset.

I'm not saying this is the only thing systems do for shooters, but I think it's a fundamental benefit of systems that may underpin other benefits.

pj
chgo

(By the way, I like the word "benefits" better than "advantages" because it doesn't imply that systems are the only or best source for these things.)

PJ,
That "Organizing" has passed through my mind too, though I hadn't bridged it together as a concept. It's something I've felt when playing that way.

It's a bit like I don't have a feeling of pressure right from the start of the stance behind the ball, whereas with the 'amorphous' method it can feel like the crucial decision process starts as soon as you begin to lean forward for the shot. Any slight offline or jerky movements can unnerve your confidence in the line you're trying to go to.

When the process is broken into steps, it seems to relieve that pressure. I'm only really switching ON, to feel the line, as I'm sliding quite comfortably into (and usually across) the required aim line.

I have also wondered if coming across the line of aim slowly has its advantages, rather than trying to slide straight down it. Going across the line it tends to feel a little like you're cracking a safe. You get to a point where it just feels right, if you keep going it feels wrong. That feeling doesn't seem to occur so much when you're just 's'ing in with the cue, pretty much in a straight line coz you can't compare the feel of one aim line with another unless you wobble around quite awkwardly. Simply pivoting the cue tip left or right, as we see some inexperienced players do, doesn't help imho.

I also prefer 'benefits' to 'advantages' PJ. Though I was thinking a better way would be to call them 'Plausible Contributing Factors', because we can't always be sure they are benefits.

The investigation and refinement of the system would then become the recognition, investigation and refinement of Plausible Contributing Factors.

Colin

 

[lfigueroa]

True - BUT I still had to make 8 balls SOMEHOW and it was satisfying to pocket the balls I did make using Hal's methods against one of the guys who was going after me so hard for touting them.

You have to admit that there is a little irony that I won against the two biggest detractors of Hal's systems. Well at least the ones at the time who were on my ass the most about it.

Would you KILL me if we played 1 Hole - then definitely - now not as easily. I am STILL in AWE of your stop shot ability. No one stops the rock like you do.

We did have a row about it, didn't we. There was even one memorable email you sent me where you managed to use the f-word as a verb, noun, and adjective in one sentence

Anywhos, I must admit you played well and deserved the win, system or no. And in spite of your kind words, you're a strong player -- I don't even know about the 1pocket now. (no, I ain't goin' to China).

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Hey, those weren't the ONLY two detractors you played after seeing the light!

(feeling a little left out)

oh yeah. Mike was definitely a detractor, too.

We all loved ya, John

Lou Figueroa
wow. It's like an RSB reunion
around here

 

[Cornerman]

I don't remember John's 1P performance in particular, but he was shooting real straight that night in 9-ball.

While we're reminiscing about all good times in the past, I happen to get by John, and you outlasted both of us in the 9-ball. FWIW, for those that might suggest you never get it on in a competitive environment.

I think I would have beaten Deno (no offense, Deno), and you handled me without much sweat on another table.

[EDIT: Wait a minute, that was another Deno matchup. Oops.]

You beat Deno, right?

Fred <~~~ would rather play than post

 

[Patrick Johnson]

ShootingArts:
...Your widely hailed post is widely hailed because it agrees with the common assumption of the "math guys" that at some point feel takes over for the "system guys". This may be true but is certainly unproven at this point particularly since you seem to indicate this is a component of all systems. One very experienced shooter on here proclaimed that he knew when he was making adjustments however a key to how most of the "math guys" think the systems work is that the "system" guys do things that they aren't aware that they are doing. Intentional or not, that is insulting and a needless bone of contention before and unless it is proven fact. At this point it isn't.

It's proven that these systems cannot make all shots without some adjustment. Many system users claim they make no adjustments. Therefore it's proven that they're doing things they're not aware of doing.

It's necessary to know that adjustments are used within these systems in order to understand them, so it's not an unnecessary bone of contention. The contentiousness begins when system users take needless offense at being contradicted.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

While we're reminiscing about all good times in the past, I happen to get by John, and you outlasted both of us in the 9-ball. FWIW, for those that might suggest you never get it on in a competitive environment.

Fred <~~~ would rather play than post

That was a fun tourney, and "outlasted" is probably the right word. We actually played two tourneys at once (1P and 9-ball) and swore we'd never try that again. I remember falling asleep on one of the tables between matches - and I was the TD!

I remember posting something on RSB about how the players seemed to rank and, not to take anything from anybody else (you're an accomplished tournament player), both Lou and John played a notch above the rest of us that night. John was literally trotting around the tables channeling Hal Houle on speed while Lou was his usual R2D2 shotmaking machine self. If anybody is interested in seeing a textbook preshot/stroke system in action, high thee to St. Louis and donate something to Lou's winning column - many of us already have.

pj
chgo

Did I knock anybody's action?

 

[Colin Colenso]

I was also very impressed with Spidey's success in the video. I knew he was a great shot maker, but now I'm even more impressed. I would expect that he could do well with any or no "aiming system;" although, I know he has told us CTE and 90/90 have made a difference for him.

Hopefully Spidey can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would bet that when he is down on a shot, regardless of whatever system he uses to get there, he can tell if the shot has a chance or going or not (i.e., I bet he can "see" if the aim is good or not). If the aim is not good, I bet he can make micro adjustments (or get up and reload) before shooting so the aim is good. If that is the case, then I don't think he really needs an "aiming system." He just needs to align himself with the desired aiming line (while standing up), drop down into his stance while keeping the cue aligned with the aiming line, and make micro-adjustments if necessary while down on the shot. Then he shoots, and the ball goes in the hole. Maybe the "systems" he uses might help him do all of this. I just think he has great eyesight, great visualization skills, and lots of successful practice and experience under his belt. He is certainly a better shot maker than I would ever hope to be, with any or no "system."

Regards,
Dave

Dave,
At least a couple of plausible contributing factors would be done away with if he tried to do this just going straight down into the line of the shot. That's one way in fact to test the value of the some of these factors. If no change was noted, you'd remove those aspects from the system. I suspect, the way he pivots into and slides into the line is an important aspect of how he gets to the line of aim. There is a kind of visual crossing of the surface of the OB from the edge to the line of aim which is hard to see with a straight to LOA approach.

Colin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Fred:
You beat Deno, right?

Yeah, after weeks of bitter woofing on RSB (about a similar topic, I think) we matched up and Deno got the worst of it, but I didn't crush him. Although he was a nationally ranked 3C player and I've always been impressed at his ability to transfer his 3C skills to pool, it's not his first game.

I hope to see him at Chris's 3C tourney sometime this weekend.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

The bottom line is you're not going to achieve (2) during your million-ball march unless you fix (1) and learn to recognize many different shots as really being the same shot.

Mike,

I can't really see how that comes into the way I execute the system, though I guess it could make some sense regarding how SAM players talked in terms of recognizing 3 angles and possible halfway angles. Though I haven't heard Spidey or other users recently mentioning that they pay much attention to the angle or categories of angles / shots.

Joe Tucker's system would seem to fit perfectly into the model you suggest.

Another point, I tend to think there is not much more than about 20 or 30 typical common shots. It's just that the angles and distanced differ slightly between them. So you learn that type of shot and get a feel for a when to aim a little thinner or fuller than what might be the standard mid-range of that type of shot.

Colin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Colin:
I tend to think there is not much more than about 20 or 30 typical common shots.

This can be quantified. Here's a little chart showing the number of cut angles necessary to cover all possible shots from different distances into different size pockets:



This is a simplified calculation which doesn't take everything into consideration (for instance, it uses the whole pocket width, which some say is too generous), but it shows your estimate of 20 or 30 common shots is in the same ballpark, at least at short-to-medium distances.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Just to clarify, Joe shot 66 and then 63 out of 80, which is about 79 and 82%, while Spidey shot 15 from 16 = ~94%

I'll be extremely impressed if Spidey could do the whole test and maintain over 90%. It's easy to lose focus for a few shots here and there as Joe did, probably due to lack of recent practice. I'd imagine Joe would shoot high 80s when he's tournament ready.

Not to take anything away from Spidey's shooting. He looks to be seeing the aimline with more ease than Joe at the moment and that is something that ought to turn a few heads. I still want to see him run the whole test to see the stability and consistancy he has developed with that method. I don't think he got lucky to get 15/16. I just expect him to have a few human aiming moments. If he doesn't, I want him tested for batteries.

Colin

Colin,

I promise to do the left side very soon and post. I'm only going to shoot 16. I get very, very bored with drills. I think 16 shows how I pocket. If I start missing at 40 does it mean I can't aim and execute or does it mean I no longer give a sh1t? I'd rather keep it within the realm of "caring" since the test isn't a concentration test, it's a potting test

FOR THE RECORD: I have zero chance of beating Joe Tucker in any game, before anyone gets the naive idea I can player better (or pot better when he's in stroke). I'm completely out-classed. Which is why, for the record, the cash goes from me to him for lessons and not the other way around.

 

[Colin Colenso]

This can be quantified. Here's a little chart showing the number of cut angles necessary to cover all possible shots from different distances into different size pockets:

View attachment 82662

This is a simplified calculation which doesn't take everything into consideration (for instance, it uses the whole pocket width, which some say is too generous), but it shows your estimate of 20 or 30 common shots is in the same ballpark, at least at short-to-medium distances.

pj
chgo

Interesting PJ,
I was just estimating based on a kind of perception that during a pool session, it usually feels like I get to play certain typical shots several times, and most shots fall into these typical shot categories. They're very recognizable, like old enemies and old friends. You get to know your inclinations with each of them. Also, the potting test I drew up shows 8 basic shots to each side of the table. There are some shorter and longer versions of these shots and a few angles in between, and some center pocket pots, but there aren't a lot of shots that are essetially that different.

There are other shots that come up rarely and are less familiar such as some banks, long super fine cuts, combinations, masse's etc.

Colin

 

[dr_dave]

Dave,
At least a couple of plausible contributing factors would be done away with if he tried to do this just going straight down into the line of the shot. That's one way in fact to test the value of the some of these factors. If no change was noted, you'd remove those aspects from the system. I suspect, the way he pivots into and slides into the line is an important aspect of how he gets to the line of aim. There is a kind of visual crossing of the surface of the OB from the edge to the line of aim which is hard to see with a straight to LOA approach.

Good point. Maybe you need to add an item 7 to your "list of plausible contributing factors." Please let me know if you do.

Regards,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I was also very impressed with Spidey's success in the video. I knew he was a great shot maker, but now I'm even more impressed. I would expect that he could do well with any or no "aiming system;" although, I know he has told us CTE and 90/90 have made a difference for him.

Hopefully Spidey can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would bet that when he is down on a shot, regardless of whatever system he uses to get there, he can tell if the shot has a chance or going or not (i.e., I bet he can "see" if the aim is good or not). If the aim is not good, I bet he can make micro adjustments (or get up and reload) before shooting so the aim is good. If that is the case, then I don't think he really needs an "aiming system." He just needs to align himself with the desired aiming line (while standing up), drop down into his stance while keeping the cue aligned with the aiming line, and make micro-adjustments if necessary while down on the shot. Then he shoots, and the ball goes in the hole. Maybe the "systems" he uses might help him do all of this. I just think he has great eyesight, great visualization skills, and lots of successful practice and experience under his belt. He is certainly a better shot maker than I would ever hope to be, with any or no "system."

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave:

I've played for 13.5 years SOLID with heavy practice to become a stronger player. Throughout most of those years, I only used ghost ball. My ball pocketing wasn't in the same solar system as it is now. My perception and intuition didn't just sky rocket in the last year out of happenstance. Like I said before, these systems enable me to pocket shots with ease.

If I did an honest-try attempt with ghost ball, I'd still do better than average - but not as good as when I'm pivoting. The problem is, if I missed, you'd prob think I missed on purpose or something to prove my point (which I wouldn't do).

So from a lot of experience, and I'm not a C player, I'm telling the group these pivot systems are far superior to non-pivot systems for me personally. They're not for everyone, I guess. Some people don't like to pivot at all.

A few things I KNOW for sure:

- They'll benefit more advanced players more than beginners (contrary to what a few said earlier)

- They provide more than a general reference based on experience

- They are FAR more geometrically sound that was has been presented

- It's not all "me" that's pocketing these balls. Many of these shots don't even feel "right" before I pull the trigger. My brain is saying "no" when I'm locked it, but they go. Explain that. That's prob why I didn't pocket well with ghost ball when my brain was saying "fire away, you have locks from here."

- There's more going on that what's been described. I spoke to Stan Shuffett last night about the subject and he mentioned about shooting with a slanted cue post-pivot and some other techniques. Meaning, there's a LOT going on which is why we keep pleading to have you guys watch us closely. We CAN learn together by sitting at the table. These internet diagrams will get us nowhere.

That's it. I don't want everyone to think I'm a good ball potter with ghost ball, because I'm not. THATS WHY I GOT RID OF GHOST BALL LONG AGO.

EDIT:

DR., I'm not aligning my body to the aiming line, I'm aligning my body to the sighting line (CTE/ETE). Big difference. Colin and I have spoken about this long before this thread. The sight-line goes under my right in-step . My visualization skills suck, which is why I sucked with ghost ball. I can't shoot to invisible stuff.

 

[eezbank]

Dr. Dave:

I've played for 13.5 years SOLID with heavy practice to become a stronger player. Throughout most of those years, I only used ghost ball. My ball pocketing wasn't in the same solar system as it is now. My perception and intuition didn't just sky rocket in the last year out of happenstance. Like I said before, these systems enable me to pocket shots with ease.

If I did an honest-try attempt with ghost ball, I'd still do better than average - but not as good as when I'm pivoting. The problem is, if I missed, you'd prob think I missed on purpose or something to prove my point (which I wouldn't do).

So from a lot of experience, and I'm not a C player, I'm telling the group these pivot systems are far superior to non-pivot systems for me personally. They're not for everyone, I guess. Some people don't like to pivot at all.

A few things I KNOW for sure:

- They'll benefit more advanced players more than beginners (contrary to what a few said earlier)

- They provide more than a general reference based on experience

- They are FAR more geometrically sound that was has been presented

- It's not all "me" that's pocketing these balls. Many of these shots don't even feel "right" before I pull the trigger. My brain is saying "no" when I'm locked it, but they go. Explain that. That's prob why I didn't pocket well with ghost ball when my brain was saying "fire away, you have locks from here."

- There's more going on that what's been described. I spoke to Stan Shuffett last night about the subject and he mentioned about shooting with a slanted cue post-pivot and some other techniques. Meaning, there's a LOT going on which is why we keep pleading to have you guys watch us closely. We CAN learn together by sitting at the table. These internet diagrams will get us nowhere.

That's it. I don't want everyone to think I'm a good ball potter with ghost ball, because I'm not. THATS WHY I GOT RID OF GHOST BALL LONG AGO.

EDIT:

DR., I'm not aligning my body to the aiming line, I'm aligning my body to the sighting line (CTE/ETE). Big difference. Colin and I have spoken about this long before this thread. The sight-line goes under my right in-step .

You're right on the money again here Dave. When you have the CB OB pocket relationship lined up you decide what is needed. You apply it and it doesn't always look right. You MUST stop looking at the pockets and trust you are lined up correctly. Hope to see you at the DCC. :thumbup: