diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems

I am truly shocked !!

I can't believe another aiming thread will (blessedly) come to an end with the usual name calling and inuendos. And also NOT amicably.
Why did no one respond to JoeW's excellent post (#179)
This puts "aiming systems" in a context that the unwashed, mathematically illiterate, dis-believer's (like me) can understand.
Basically, that the brain CANNOT determine 33.750 from 37.350 by simply looking at a round sphere 6 to 8 feet away.
Sorry to all "aiming system" guru's, but is common sense NEVER going to enter into ANY of these never-ending diatribes.

Dick
 
What I find interesting is that whenever you have a thread talking about it, you get dozens of ppl with strong convictions, but...

when Colin puts up a "show us what you know" thread, you get....3 videos posted.


Eric >just sayin
 
...I said [2D and 3D] are the same for our purposes in the same view.
Click to expand...

OK, now say what that means.

The difference is that the diagrams are created in the top view where both balls are the same distance from our viewpoint and in the side view as we see the balls in the real world they are different distances from our eyes so we perceive them as different sizes. I think this is the fifth or sixth time I have said this so it is the time for you to either say this is what you have been saying all along or deny that perspective exists.
Click to expand...

Then this will be the fifth or sixth time I've said "so what?". It's time for you to say how this could possibly make aiming adjustments unnecessary with pivot aiming. If you can't (you haven't so far), what's the point of saying it five or six times?

pj
chgo
 
Aiming adjustments are not necessary with pivot aiming. If indeed your diagram was about pivot aiming you would know this. You can't do a diagram about pivot aiming without actually trying pivot aiming on a pool table.
 
Getting better but 70's are going to be tough! I believe I have to figure on at least 6 misses from the first 20 shots and I think that's more than reasonable. That leaves me 4 misses for the remaining 60 shots. You'll need real good focus. I took the 63 down and replaced it with a 67 from this morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-prVQMEHgg&feature=PlayList&p=A770848BF74375DD&index=0&playnext=1
I would like to see some complete 80 shot videos, it takes under an hr to complete the workout and I'm on board to add some incentives if anyone comes up with a contest. Doesn't have to best score, could be whoever posted a complete workout is eliglible to win whatever it is we have to win.
 
OK, I finally had the chance to do the workout - sorry, forgot the video camera, if I have time maybe I'll do that sometime.

I only had 45 minutes or so, and I think I rushed a few shots and bobbled them in the pocket (also easy to do on the Olhausen I was playing on) so I may be good for a another 1 or 2 on each side with more concentration.

Results (shot on a 9' Olhausen with 4 5/8 pockets I think, just slightly more than 2 balls):

1R - 1 (this was no fun at all) 1L - 2
2R - 3 2L - 3
3R - 4 (can't believe I missed 1!!) 3L - 5
4R - 4 4L - 4
5R - 4 5L - 4
6R - 3 6L - 4
7R - 3 7L - 4
8R - 4 8L - 3
-------------------------------------------
26 29

Total: 54


Respectable I guess, especially since I never fancied myself a pure shotmaker, more of a position player, my eyes just aren't that good... Again, I think 60 is quite possible even in the next session with some true concentration and not rushing, but this is a great collection of shots, thanks Colin! And great shooting Joe, I'll have to watch your video and Spidey's at home later this week, I'm blocked from work... :(

I'm a feel aimer, learned through ghost ball methods etc. Decent player I guess. Usually don't spend a lot of time aiming, the angle just looks right and I adjust for english and shoot. But some of these shots seem like they might be conducive to a 90/90 or CTE type system, actually looked like 1/2 ball hits, so maybe using the systems would take a little guesswork and "feel" out of it.

I did find something interesting - after abyssmal results on shot 1, and missing the ball slightly repeatedly trying to get the thin hit required, I actually tried a few edge to edge type things, trying to make sense of what I've been reading for the last 200 or so pages on aiming. What I did - for the shot to the right, I aimed the right edge of the cue ball at the left edge of the object ball, then pivoted and sort of slid my bridge over to the center of the cue ball. I made 3 in a row (after the exercise was over). So while there might be something to this, and maybe I did some sort of 90/reverse system without knowing it, I found the aiming and pivoting awkward compared to my normal routine.


So as a science/math/geometry guy at heart, with an extreme interest in always learning and looking for that next shot or technique that will improve my game 1% or 2%, I will continue to read the next 200+ pages of these aiming threads, and wading through all of the arguments, personal attacks, lack of information, etc., hoping to finally figure out what the systems are, how they work, how/when to pivot or adjust, and how to apply them to my game. Even with all of the unnecessary and non-pertinent conversations, threads like these are what keeps me coming back to see what's new every day!

Scott
 
Aiming adjustments are not necessary with pivot aiming. If indeed your diagram was about pivot aiming you would know this. You can't do a diagram about pivot aiming without actually trying pivot aiming on a pool table.
Click to expand...

All three of those statements are wrong. It seems that pivot aiming users know the least about it.

pj
chgo
 
I think that IF a system works then there HAS to be a way to diagram it and explain what is going on. Even if that diagram has to be a 3-d drawing instead of a 2-d one.

I think that we are getting closer than we ever have been. I also think that there is some crucial element missing in the 2-d diagrams thus far.

This weekend I was watching Gabe owen and I SWEAR that he uses SOME KIND of aiming system. Why do I say this? Because if you watch system aimers like Spidey you can see the movements and approach to the ball are much different than feel aimers who seem to just flow while getting down on the shot.

It's kind of like a robot going through minor adjustments while zeroing in. Once zeroed in though it seems automatic to make the ball providing that the stroke is there.

I would like someone to diagram Colin's shot test and try and put Ron's system or Hal's on it and see if works for all the shots. Because there is no denying what we all saw in Spidey's video. He used the same aiming system on all his shots and hit the back of the pocket on all but one. That's a pretty strong statement.
 
SJDinPHX said:
I can't believe another aiming thread will (blessedly) come to an end with the usual name calling and inuendos. And also NOT amicably.
Why did no one respond to JoeW's excellent post (#179)
This puts "aiming systems" in a context that the unwashed, mathematically illiterate, dis-believer's (like me) can understand.
Basically, that the brain CANNOT determine 33.750 from 37.350 by simply looking at a round sphere 6 to 8 feet away.
Sorry to all "aiming system" guru's, but is common sense NEVER going to enter into ANY of these never-ending diatribes.

Dick
Click to expand...

Well for one thing the people who use the systems are being disrespected for trusting something that they don't fully understand. However when a very good player or pro says they just do it and don't understand how they do it they are applauded.

The system user doesn't understand the math behind what he is doing that makes it work, nor the proposed subconscious adjustments that have been proposed to be occurring. He or she just follows instructions and makes balls.

None of the aiming system 'gurus' are proposing that someone figure degrees of angle. They are saying that if you do this then this happens - and it does. No different really than if I put my finger on the rail to indicate where my girlfriend should hit the rail to make a kick shot. She doesn't need to know why it works, just that it does.

If she wants to know how I arrived at that specific point then I will be happy to explain how to use the double the rail system. She could then use that forever without needing to know the exact geometry behind it. However if she wanted to know the exact geometry then that's available too.

Common sense tells us to do what we know works and discard what doesn't. When we get oout of driving school we often find that the techniques taught to us in driving school are fine in a controlled environment but often don't work in the real world. So we adapt to what works and develop techniques that allow us to drink coffee, shave, post to AZ while changing lanes to merge into a tricky cloverleaf at 70mph. We do this automatically but it's based on the "systems" we learned in driving school. We discard the things that don't work in favor of the ones that do.

System aiming is no different. Would ANYONE use these if they didn't work? Doesn't common sense tell you that a pool player's goal is to get better and make more balls. The whole purpose of pocket billiards is to make the balls disappear. So obviously it's common sense that all players are looking for whatever "edge" they can find to make that happen more often and consistently.

In the article that Dave posted from Pool and Billiard Magazine it's clear to see that many pros use and have been exposed to many different "aiming systems" and that many of them use some form or another until it's ingrained and feels natural to them.

I would bet high that in all your years on the road, well before the internet, well before there were plenty of books and tapes and even magazines on pool, that you have been exposed to various aiming "systems". I am positive that in your time you would have had these discussions in some fashion or another. People can't help but to share whatever things they find to be useful, especially if they feel that they have discovered it.

One year Fred and I were in Valley Forge and we had a table and Fred was showing off Hal's systems. We had a small crowd and an older man, 60-70 years old, came to the table and proclaimed that he had learned similar systems as a young man.

So they have been around. You asked for common sense in the discussion. Common sense dictates that there are more than one way to skin a cat.
 
...there is no denying what we all saw in Spidey's video.
Click to expand...

And there's no adding to it either.

He used the same aiming system on all his shots
Click to expand...

The video doesn't show that.

...That's a pretty strong statement.
Click to expand...

It's not the statement you think it is. The video shows Spidey's a pretty strong shooter. It doesn't show how.

How often does this need to be said?

pj
chgo
 
JB Cases said:
... the people who use the systems are being disrespected for trusting something that they don't fully understand. However when a very good player or pro says they just do it and don't understand how they do it they are applauded.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The people who use the systems are being "disrespected" for insisting they know how the systems work when they obviously don't - and for "disrespecting" others who point out the inconsistencies in what they say.

Any player would be applauded for playing well and not knowing how - that's not what happens here.

The system user doesn't understand the math behind what he is doing that makes it work, nor the proposed subconscious adjustments that have been proposed to be occurring. He or she just follows instructions and makes balls.
Click to expand...

That's not what happens here. Here the system user insists he knows how the system works despite being unable to show it, and anybody who disagrees is "disrespected".

The rest of your post was directed more specifically to Dick - I just wanted to respond to these more general comments about the dynamic in these threads.

pj
chgo
 
I think that IF a system works then there HAS to be a way to diagram it and explain what is going on. Even if that diagram has to be a 3-d drawing instead of a 2-d one.

I think that we are getting closer than we ever have been. I also think that there is some crucial element missing in the 2-d diagrams thus far.
Click to expand...

I don't think we're any closer to diagramming how these systems work - I don't think it can be diagrammed completely. We can diagram what's described, but that doesn't get us to the final aim - that final step can't be diagrammed because that's where feel takes over. That's the crucial missing element and it can't be diagrammed, except to say "here's where feel takes over".

What we're getting closer to in these threads is system users are beginning to realize and admit this. I wonder if the realization will be good or bad for their games - I bet they're wondering too.

pj
chgo
 
Eric. said:
What I find interesting is that whenever you have a thread talking about it, you get dozens of ppl with strong convictions, but...

when Colin puts up a "show us what you know" thread, you get....3 videos posted.


Eric >just sayin
Click to expand...

What I find "interesting" is that you think a video of somebody shooting shots "shows what they know". It shows what they can do, but they might be doing it entirely by feel for all we know. Nothing in the video shows otherwise.

This has been said over and over. Why are you having such a hard time getting it?

Just sayin'...

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Eric. said:
What I find interesting is that whenever you have a thread talking about it, you get dozens of ppl with strong convictions, but...

when Colin puts up a "show us what you know" thread, you get....3 videos posted.


Eric >just sayin
Click to expand...
What I find "interesting" is that you think a video of somebody shooting shots "shows what they know". It shows what they can do, but they might be doing it entirely by feel for all we know. Nothing in the video shows otherwise.

This has been said over and over. Why are you having such a hard time getting it?

Just sayin'...

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

There ya have it folks. The legend of Patrick Johnson; obnoxiously sarcastic, stubborn and arrogant.

Patrick, whether you agree or not, there is a group of ppl who believe that knowing all kinds of Pool theory and doing most of your playing "from the bench" means little. Pool is a physical game; it IS NOT played in a think tank. IMO, the knowledge ppl need to learn and practice more is the knowledge and tricks on how to execute rather than the knowledge of "how and why" balls do what they do. In case you haven't figured it out, yes, they are two separate entities and yes, both need lots of knowledge and attention. IMO, having lots of knowledge of angles, what balls do when spun, etc means a far less than the knowledge of how to execute. Not until you get to a fairly high amateur level (B player or better) does the knowledge of "how and why" start to make a significant difference in your game. My thinking on that is probably because as you get better, the improvements become smaller and smaller, so you need to look at more minute things for improvement.

If you're below "B" level, then....DON'T THINK TOO MUCH, JUST MAKE THE BALL.


Eric >loves "PhD" PJ
 
PJ is a good B player. I know he plays respectable, although I dog him to death because he thinks he knows everything. He doesn't know he doesn't know, which is the problem, because he doesn't use practical application to learn new things.

When you think you know everything, you never learn anything new.

It's a shame. He could be so much more than this site's chief antagonist.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
PJ is a good B player. I know he plays respectable, although I dog him to death because he thinks he knows everything. He doesn't know he doesn't know, which is the problem, because he doesn't use practical application to learn new things.

When you think you know everything, you never learn anything new.

It's a shame. He could be so much more than this site's chief antagonist.
Click to expand...

It's funny how perspectives differ. I see Patrick as of the most curious and open-minded people around here.
 
Eric. said:
There ya have it folks. The legend of Patrick Johnson; obnoxiously sarcastic, stubborn and arrogant.

Patrick, whether you agree or not, there is a group of ppl who believe that knowing all kinds of Pool theory and doing most of your playing "from the bench" means little. Pool is a physical game; it IS NOT played in a think tank. IMO, the knowledge ppl need to learn and practice more is the knowledge and tricks on how to execute rather than the knowledge of "how and why" balls do what they do. In case you haven't figured it out, yes, they are two separate entities and yes, both need lots of knowledge and attention. IMO, having lots of knowledge of angles, what balls do when spun, etc means a far less than the knowledge of how to execute. Not until you get to a fairly high amateur level (B player or better) does the knowledge of "how and why" start to make a significant difference in your game. My thinking on that is probably because as you get better, the improvements become smaller and smaller, so you need to look at more minute things for improvement.

If you're below "B" level, then....DON'T THINK TOO MUCH, JUST MAKE THE BALL.


Eric >loves "PhD" PJ
Click to expand...

I'm sure your theories about knowledge vs. experience are fascinating, but they don't have anything to do with what I said (over and over): videos can only show that you aim well; they can't show how you aim well.

Posting videos of yourself making shots is just swinging your dick around. It's entertaining (especially to you), but it doesn't tell us anything about the central question of all these aiming system threads: does [choose your system] require "adjustment" or does it work purely "systematically"?

Do you have anything to say on this topic, or are you just another poster awash in testosterone with nothing to say but "some really, really good players use [choose your system] and I bet you're not as good as them (or me)"?

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top