diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems

[SpiderWebComm]

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

Depending on the system I play with (CTE/90-90 aka ETE), There's no more than 3 shots I see on a pool table, no less than 2. That might show why I've improved so quickly. While others are worrying about shooting a million balls and identifying 30 shots/angles, I worry about 3 and master those 3. CTE has 2 (CTE for 98% all shots, center-to-1/4 for straight-ins within a diamond...close range) and 90/90 has (90/90, 90/half, 90/reverse90). 90/90 also has 90/split-the-difference for straight-ins but I classify that as 90/90 because I make the slight tip turn from a 90-90 position anyways. I'll go through tons of shots with with 2 or 4 sights and a pivot. 30 shots? No way, been there, done that - never again.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Spiderdave:
These internet diagrams will get us nowhere.

You don't understand what the diagrams are for - that's probably one of the reasons you mistakenly think these systems are under attack. The diagrams aren't intended to teach how to use the systems or to show how they work. All they can do is show what's impossible. Mainly, they show that it's impossible to make all shots using only the system instructions we've heard, so there must be a lot missing from the descriptions.

You guys (system users) can't seem to describe what you do in detail, so the rest of us have to try to figure it out by a process of elimination - geometry and diagrams tell us what can't be true and educated guesswork helps us sift through the possibilities that are left.

I know you'll want to say "but all you have to do is get a few hours of instruction to learn what we do" - but I know myself well enough to know that a system that can't be fully described by its users wouldn't be useful for a "technician" like me, so I'm not interested in spending that much time and effort to learn it. However, I am interested enough in a casual way to learn what I can about it during the time I spend on AZB anyway.

One thing I'm not interested in is "debunking" these systems - I guess you must get that mistaken idea from the fact that you disagree with some of us about how much "user input" is needed to make them work. The amount of user input needed doesn't make a system good or bad, and I still don't know why you and other system users are so sensitive to that question.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You don't understand what the diagrams are for - that's probably one of the reasons you mistakenly think these systems are under attack. The diagrams aren't intended to teach how to use the systems or to show how they work. All they can do is show what's impossible. Mainly, they show that it's impossible to make all shots using only the system instructions we've heard, so there must be a lot missing from the descriptions.

You guys (system users) can't seem to describe what you do in detail, so the rest of us have to try to figure it out by a process of elimination - geometry and diagrams tell us what can't be true and educated guesswork helps us sift through the possibilities that are left.

pj
chgo

Hey genius boy... here's a thought for you... go play around with the systems and report back. Take an ice-scraper and peel your azz off your chair and hit some balls and help us figure out the "whys" with your pool cue and not your mouse.

Still looking for your video PJ CHGO. My cat even uploaded one. He can prob make balls better than you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iafmWzbhGjg

Butterscotch told me to ask you if you wanted any....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Hey genius boy...

Still looking for your video... My cat even uploaded one. He can prob make balls better than you

LOL. I'm not attacking you or your manhood, so there's no need for duels. Chill out.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

LOL. I'm not attacking you or your manhood, so there's no need for duels. Chill out.

pj
chgo

I'm chill. I was just yanking your pocket protector

 

[Dead Crab]

***************
- 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."
***************************************

I have the same experience.

You probably have shifting, and/or opposite dominant eye that screws up your perceprion.

I deal with this by closing one eye when aiming. When I open it to shoot, everything looks cock-eyed, but with a straight stroke, the ball goes anyway.

For some of us, trusting the calculated aim, rather than what we see, is critical to improvement.

 

[chevybob20]

Watch Dave's bridge hand from the time he stands behind the shot until he slides into position. It is the key. It is the adjustment. It should be on the shot line before and after the pivot. The feeling of being out of alignment that the others and I get when using the system is due to the cue stick being out of alignment with the sight line. I am in no way an expert on this, but I do use this system on some shots and it has helped. The hand falls on the shot line. The pivot finds center ball and the eye's have a lock in point (quiet eye's). This adds up to confidence and a confident stroke. I believe that Colin has it right.

This is a good thread. I especially enjoy the analysis from the experts. Thanks

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Watch Dave's bridge hand from the time he stands behind the shot until he slides into position. It is the key. It is the adjustment. It should be on the shot line before and after the pivot. The feeling of being out of alignment that the others and I get when using the system is due to the cue stick being out of alignment with the sight line. I am in no way an expert on this, but I do use this system on some shots and it has helped. The hand falls on the shot line. The pivot finds center ball and the eye's have a lock in point (quiet eye's). This adds up to confidence and a confident stroke. I believe that Colin has it right.

This is a good thread. I especially enjoy the analysis from the experts. Thanks

im typing this from my phone at bwi airport so bear with me.

your bridge is never on the cte line. if it were, you'd always make a half-ball hit post-pivot.

with ronvs system, the bridge is on the sight line.

i know i have dominant eye issues. joe t's 3rd eye only lets me see center with my left eye. i wish i was a cyclops.

 

[chevybob20]

That's what I was trying to convey. I in no way meant that the bridge hand was on the CTE line.

 

[dr_dave]

You don't understand what the diagrams are for - that's probably one of the reasons you mistakenly think these systems are under attack. The diagrams aren't intended to teach how to use the systems or to show how they work. All they can do is show what's impossible. Mainly, they show that it's impossible to make all shots using only the system instructions we've heard, so there must be a lot missing from the descriptions.

You guys (system users) can't seem to describe what you do in detail, so the rest of us have to try to figure it out by a process of elimination - geometry and diagrams tell us what can't be true and educated guesswork helps us sift through the possibilities that are left.

I know you'll want to say "but all you have to do is get a few hours of instruction to learn what we do" - but I know myself well enough to know that a system that can't be fully described by its users wouldn't be useful for a "technician" like me, so I'm not interested in spending that much time and effort to learn it. However, I am interested enough in a casual way to learn what I can about it during the time I spend on AZB anyway.

One thing I'm not interested in is "debunking" these systems - I guess you must get that mistaken idea from the fact that you disagree with some of us about how much "user input" is needed to make them work. The amount of user input needed doesn't make a system good or bad, and I still don't know why you and other system users are so sensitive to that question.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. I would love nothing more than to see (and even help create) diagrams to show how the systems actually work. As you point out, the only thing your diagram and the diagrams in my articles show is: the sometimes-outrageous and sometimes-over-simplified descriptions of and claims about the "systems" are not complete and are sometimes misleading. I know many people have suggested you can't describe the systems in words and can't possibly illustrate them with 2D illustrations, but I find that hard to believe ... it might not be easy, but it certainly should not be impossible.

I agree with Spidey and others that the diagrams are "wrong" if people think they illustrate how the systems work. They obviously don't. What I was hoping the diagrams would do is allow the system proponents to explain (and/or demonstrate) in detail what the systems do to overcome the issues implied by the diagrams. We may never get that, but I have certainly learned a lot the last few weeks from all of the contributions from so many people (especially Colin, you, Mike Page, Joe T, and Spidey).

Thanks to all,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

dr.d-

I think if u want to learn how this stuff works, use it for 90 days. u admitted ur ball making isn't steller...so what do u have to lose other than your ghost dog that chases ur ghost ball?

 

[dr_dave]

dr.d-

I think if u want to learn how this stuff works, use it for 90 days. u admitted ur ball making isn't steller...so what do u have to lose other than your ghost dog that chases ur ghost ball?

Spidey,

I know that you know I have put a great deal of effort into talking to and communicating with many of the people who have developed and who promote these systems. I have tried everything they have suggested; although, I admit I didn't do it for 90 days! I think if I did anything (regardless or what is was) for 90 days and tried really hard to make it work, I bet it would help is some regard. If I could find enough time (and desire) to practice something for 90 days, I would probably work on some good aiming drill (e.g., Colin's potting drill) and concentrate on improving all of my fundamentals. When I concentrate on my fundamentals, actually aim in the upright position, and really focus on my aim and cue tip position at my "set" position," and execute and stay down on the shot with confidence, my current aiming methods seem quite adequate. I'm not sure what you mean by "ghost ball;" but whatever you do mean, I doubt it is a fair description of what I and other really do. When I aim, I use any and all of: aiming line visualization, ghost-ball visualization, ball-to-ball contact-point visualization (like Joe Tucker), impact-line (or "target line" or "line of centers") visualization, center-to-edge (CTE) 1/2-ball-hit line visualization (especially when the shot is close to a 1/2-ball hit), one-eyed-squint edge visualization for thin hits, etc.

I know I don't play enough to be a great shooter, but I seriously doubt a different "aiming system" could magically turn me into a great shooter. Now, 90 days of intelligent, dedicated, and focused practice could definitely make me (and I'm sure others) improve dramatically. Thank you for the encouragement to do this. I will try to find the time.

Regards,
Dave

 

[daphish1]

I found this on Bob Jewett's site, i think it's good at explaining that it's not really worth it to argue the physics against the system, if the system works and vice versa.

http://www.sfbilliards.com/Houle.txt

Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:28:19
Subject: Re: Hal's secrets?

dalecue <pdg...@worldnet.spamex.net> wrote:
> balls being knocked into pockets is a real world example of the
> specific application of some of the rules that govern<describe>
> the workings of the physical world
> these rules are not open to interpretation
> the-followers-of-Hal don't seem to comprehend this rather simple fact

Well, yes, but.... My experience is that the majority of people
cannot make the connection between abstract geometry (such as a
half-ball hit) and what happens while they play pool. It may
be true that cut angle is a continuous function of the fullness
of hit, but most people have neither use for nor understanding of
a concept such as "function of".

For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more
detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to
the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they
believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park.
Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players
who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.

Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many
people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the
kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special
fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular
lines. Most people are not geometrians.

Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to my why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.

--

Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com/

 

[Patrick Johnson]

dr.d-

I think if u want to learn how this stuff works, use it for 90 days. u admitted ur ball making isn't steller...so what do u have to lose other than your ghost dog that chases ur ghost ball?

I think you might have a(nother) misconception. "Ghost ball" is not how everybody aims except those who use pivot systems. Ghost ball is a specific system that some use and many don't.

Many players (like myself) don't use any "formal" system, ghost ball or other, but simply estimate the positions of the OB and CB contact points and aim one at the other. Visualizing these contact points accurately is an ability that many players have and many don't. For those who have it I think this "point-to-point" method is probably the most straightforward, effective and accurate way to aim.

Ghost ball aiming is a "systematized" way of doing the same thing, but like all systems is less direct - it uses the visualized ghost CB position as a substitute for estimating the position of the actual CB contact point. Other systematized versions of point-to-point aiming are "double overlap" and "paralleling". All of these start with estimating the position of the OB contact point but then use indirect methods to align the CB contact point with it.

Many other players have a more highly developed ability to simply "know" when the CB and OB are aligned correctly for the cut angle without visualizing the contact points. For these "feel" players the method is simply "see the shot; shoot the shot", relying on their subconscious memories of successful alignments from lots of aiming experience.

For yet other players "approximation" systems are the answer (and there are many to choose from). I think these players are kind of a compromise or hybrid of feel players and point-to-point players - they have various ways of aligning the balls using visible "landmarks" (like point-to-point players and their visualized contact points), but "fine tune" the aim based on their prior experience with similar shots (like feel players).

All of these different kinds of aimers have some things in common. For instance, all of them rely on past aiming experience and "feel" in one way or another - point-to-point aimers refine their ability to accurately visualize contact points, ghost ball aimers refine their ability to visualize OB contact points and ghost ball positions, system aimers fine tune system alignments to "finished" aim - but there are distinct differences between them.

In other words, it isn't just pivot systems and "ghost balling".

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I found this on Bob Jewett's site, i think it's good at explaining that it's not really worth it to argue the physics against the system, if the system works and vice versa.

To those of us who aren't trying to use the systems (because we already have our own successful ways of aiming) yet have an academic interest in them, it's well worth investigating the physics and psychology of how they work. The arguments are just noise created by misunderstandings.

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

- They provide more than a general reference based on experience

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

They're perfectly good geometrically IF you know where to pivot. The final aim line is only as good as how well you've determined that location, which can be anywhere from right at the tip to an infinite distance behind it.

Where is it located for a particular shot? It lies on a line that goes from the center of the ghostball through the center of the cueball. Where it intersects the long axis of cue, no matter how the cue is oriented prior to pivoting, that is where you have to pivot if no other "hindsight" adjustments are made.

But how do you know where the center of the ghostball is located if you don't use the ghostball? You can't find it by pivoting since you can't know where to pivot unless you already know where the ghostball is - in which case you can chuck the procedure. An exception occurs if you link your initial offset to the other ghostball, the one that lies opposite (pocket-side) of the standard ghostball. But again, you still need to use a ghostball.

Since the range of pivot positions goes from zero to infinity, you can be very far off if you make a casual choice. It won't even get you into the parking lot a mile from the ballpark. True, this can be reduced by limiting the kinds of shots in which you employ the system, but it's still going to range over an appreciable length of the stick if used in any general way.

So my question is: how do you know where to pivot? If you can't answer that, that is, provide some sort of systematic method, then don't you have to agree that there is some hindsight (eg, ghostball) involved?

Jim

 

[cookie man]

I agree with Spidey and others that the diagrams are "wrong" if people think they illustrate how the systems work. They obviously don't. What I was hoping the diagrams would do is allow the system proponents to explain (and/or demonstrate) in detail what the systems do to overcome the issues implied by the diagrams. We may never get that, but I have certainly learned a lot the last few weeks from all of the contributions from so many people (especially Colin, you, Mike Page, Joe T, and Spidey).

Thanks to all,
Dave[/QUOTE]
How about posting a specific shot that you say 90/90 doesn't work for, we will then tell you how to shoot it, then you can do a proper diagram. At this point do a second shot, so on and so forth. Help me help you!!!

 

[cookie man]

To those of us who aren't trying to use the systems (because we already have our own successful ways of aiming) yet have an academic interest in them, it's well worth investigating the physics and psychology of how they work. The arguments are just noise created by misunderstandings.

pj
chgo

We don't understand why you post a diagram showing they don't work(when we know they do) instead of going to a table perfoming the shot and helping us none academic people draw a proper diagram.

 

[JoeW]

I think the issue here is attempting to relate the physics of ball movement to the brain's ability to learn how to aim a CB. A system gets the player in general area and contributes to self confidence. The brain (learned neural networks) adjusts to the necessary shot line.

Regardless of your inclination to use math, attempt to plot a seven degree cut angle from the head string center diamond to the bottom rail by placing the corner of a piece of chalk at the right spot. Now measure it with a protracter and I will bet you are off by a few degrees (you would miss the pocket). Now try for a 9 degree angle then a 12 degree angle.

Place an OB on the same spot and shoot from the center diamond 3" off the rail and you can make the shot to the back of the pocket one out of three times. The brain is better at determing a pocketing angle than you are at "seeing" the actual degrees though you have experience working with angles on paper.

An interesting experiment is to place an OB about 1/2 diamond off the corner pocket one inch off the rail. Without putting too much effort into it attempt to shoot the OB to the left side of the pocket and hit just past the tip. You will find that most of the time you pocket the ball because the brain has learned to pocket, not miss shots.

A system may say that a 1/2 ball is is 33.5 degrees the pool playing brain doesn't work this way, it calculates lines to a pocket. You may say, hit here, it hits where it needs to.

In this sense, systems are not reducible to formulas. The brain's ability to program itself based on vague requests is the determiner.

Playing Ping Pong over Thanksgiving I was once again amazed at how my hand eye coordintation works so well given that the only real information is the sound and sight of the ball coming off the opponent's paddle in a fast game.

So I don't think that we are talking about physical systems. It is all mental once the idea has been communicated to the brain. The idea can be communicated using a "system" or as a stated goal. After that it is all neural networks and the real issue is how does the brain do this?

 

[Dead Crab]

*************
Regardless of your inclination to use math, attempt to plot a seven degree cut angle from the head string center diamond to the bottom rail by placing the corner of a piece of chalk at the right spot. Now measure it with a protracter and I will bet you are off by a few degrees (you would miss the pocket). Now try for a 9 degree angle then a 12 degree angle.
************************

Not so. I can nail these angles within a degree. Easy.