joe tucker aiming system

Patrick Johnson said:
I wouldn't try to improve it; it's a good system as is. But hyperbolic claims like "he has identified shots that occur 75% of the time" aren't factual or helpful. All Joe has done is evenly divide the usual range of cut angles and described a useful way to use the divisions. I respect the fact that he doesn't claim any supernatural powers for his system and wanted to point that out - it's not that common in this subforum.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Then what would YOU estimate how many shots or cut angles Joe's "training balls" cover when used for either a right or left cut from 1 degree up to about 88 degrees.

There are those who use contact point aiming for 100% of their cut shots and do claim it's the best aiming system in existence.. What are they doing differently to fill in the gaps to make the other % of shots not covered by the marks?

If anyone should know it's YOU since you use contact point aiming. But even if you didn't you'd still know because you know ALL systems thoroughly.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I wouldn't try to improve it; it's a good system as is. But hyperbolic claims like "he has identified shots that occur 75% of the time" aren't factual or helpful. All Joe has done is evenly divide the usual range of cut angles and described a useful way to use the divisions. I respect the fact that he doesn't claim any supernatural powers for his system and wanted to point that out - it's not that common in this subforum.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I said on or close to the 10 shot lines. Why do you constantly disrupt threads under the guise of being the aiming system PC monitor saving all from "hyperbolic" destruction? You obviously haven't practiced the system, yet you make blanket statements on your opinion.

Best,
Mike
 
SpiderWebComm said:
...what would YOU estimate how many shots or cut angles Joe's "training balls" cover when used for either a right or left cut from 1 degree up to about 88 degrees.
Click to expand...
About 40% of spot shots to 4.5" corner pockets, including pocket slop. I figure that's something like average.

There are those who use contact point aiming for 100% of their cut shots and do claim it's the best aiming system in existence.. What are they doing differently to fill in the gaps to make the other % of shots not covered by the marks?
Click to expand...
The same thing they (and you) do for all shots - experience-based estimation.

pj
chgo
 
Mikjary said:
I said on or close to the 10 shot lines.
Click to expand...
Everything's "close to" the 10 shot lines - and yet there are more shot lines between Joe's system lines than there are system lines themselves. Saying Joe has "identified" those 10 shot lines as somehow covering the great majority of shots is misleading to those who don't understand that they're just 10-degree divisions on a 90-degree arc.

Why do you constantly disrupt threads under the guise of being the aiming system PC monitor saving all from "hyperbolic" destruction?
Click to expand...
Correcting misinformation is only "disrupting" to those who post misinformation. To others I expect it's helpful.

...you make blanket statements on your opinion.
Click to expand...
My "opinion" is simple geometry.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Everything's "close to" the 10 shot lines - and yet there are more shot lines between Joe's system lines than there are system lines themselves. Saying Joe has "identified" those 10 shot lines as somehow covering the great majority of shots is misleading to those who don't understand that they're just 10-degree divisions on a 90-degree arc.
Click to expand...

And once again you denigrate a system as simply being misleading. This time you use the idea that there are too many shots in a 90 degree rectangle to allow any shot to be consistently close to the designated shot lines. I offered this knowledge after taking it to task...something you haven't done and have no credibility with which to speak.


Correcting misinformation is only "disrupting" to those who post misinformation. To others I expect it's helpful.
Click to expand...

Being PC is one of your fortes when it comes to agitating the forum. I know you do it to save the children, so I expect people will be shunted away from the system because of your opinion.


My "opinion" is simple geometry.
Click to expand...

And yet you attack a discussion of a geometrically correct system. Has this thread been derailed to your satisfaction? Let's hear another reason you have for disrupting our discussion. Or are you going to have to delete those comments, too?

Best,
Mike
 
Patrick Johnson said:
About 40% of spot shots to 4.5" corner pockets, including pocket slop. I figure that's something like average.


The same thing they (and you) do for all shots - experience-based estimation.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

The question wasn't about spot shots and the % of success. Why confine it to that. It was about any and all shots on the table from straight in to 88 degrees.

Experience based estimation was in fact a part of contact point aiming for me, you, and anyone who uses it. Assuming a straight in shot is at 0 on Joe's training balls and with 9 tics going around the equator from zero and #9 representing an 87-90 degree shot, it means each tic is about 10 degrees. Agreed?

So yes, experience based estimation is required for the in between angles of the 10.

That's why I stopped using it and went to CTE. I don't care what you think or want to keep debating for the rest of your life, it's much more accurate with far fewer visual alignments and about the only reason I feel like I miss shots is because of a flinch or crappy delivery with the cue to the spot on the OB.

What is experience base IS NOT making adjustments for the aim alignments...experience based comes from working and working with the system visuals and NOT deviating once down and set.

This has NEVER registered with you. Not one iota.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The question wasn't about spot shots and the % of success. Why confine it to that. It was about any and all shots on the table from straight in to 88 degrees.
Click to expand...
The overall percentage depends on what you consider an average shot length. If you think a spot shot (35") is about average length, then 40% is the overall average. For longer shots it goes down to 20% or less; for shorter ones it goes up to 70% or more.

...experience based comes from working and working with the system visuals and NOT deviating once down and set.
Click to expand...
Sure... that describes pretty much all ways of aiming.

And, by the way, even if there were no gaps in Joe's system it would still depend on "practiced estimation" - one of the two contact points remains out of sight on the other side of the CB. Joe's numbered ball image can help with the estimation (like imagining a clock face on the CB can help with English), but it's still practiced estimation. I don't think Joe says otherwise.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Hm...:eek: I've always wanted to get connected with the system:confused:
Once had an opportunity but overslept it:mad:
Anyway,I will be patient and hope my time is going to come:smile:
Heads up boys and stay well and healthy:smile:
I will be informing you:smile:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
The overall percentage depends on what you consider an average shot length. If you think a spot shot (35") is about average length, then 40% is the overall average. For longer shots it goes down to 20% or less; for shorter ones it goes up to 70% or more.


Sure... that describes pretty much all ways of aiming.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

As usual with you, this discussion is going absolutely nowhere or into some quicksand.

We'll take this one question at a time and not muddle it with multiple questions or answers.

Here's my original question: (it is slightly edited for more clarity)

"Then what would YOU estimate the number of shots that could be made or cut angles by Joe's "training balls" when used for either a right or left cut from 1 degree up to about 88 degrees" ?

All of them, none of them, a certain percentage of them IF THEY WERE STRUCK RIGHT ON THE NUMBERS WITH A GOOD STROKE??
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I didn't say the system is misleading; I said your description of it was.
Click to expand...

Armchair QB on a Sunday. Your intent was to disrupt with your opinion. SOP free-random-smileys-391.gif


Oh, please. I corrected your description of it - were you attacking it?
Click to expand...

Nice try at the obfuscation, but the confusion is all yours. It's obvious you're posting for attention and when you're not the center of attention you resort to discrediting any available thread. Don't be butthurt...find another thread! 44b.jpg

Best,
Mike
 
bbb said:
if anyone is familiar with it
could you describe its basics
thanks
Click to expand...

It's a contact point to contact point aiming system, if you are familiar with those. It is really a simple concept, even if you would understand the system quite easily when explained, I don't think you could get the full benefit of it witout the material, especially the balls and the booklet.

The concept is that the object- and cue ball is divided into 10 contact points that connect with a specific diamond and the pocket. If you put the object ball on the line between the diamond point and the pocket, then that particular number on the ball is the point you need to hit with the corresponding point on the cueball. It sounds more complicated than it is, but if I drew it I'd give away the whole system.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
It's a contact point to contact point aiming system, if you are familiar with those. It is really a simple concept, even if you would understand the system quite easily when explained, I don't think you could get the full benefit of it witout the material, especially the balls and the booklet.

The concept is that the object- and cue ball is divided into 10 contact points that connect with a specific diamond and the pocket. If you put the object ball on the line between the diamond point and the pocket, then that particular number on the ball is the point you need to hit with the corresponding point on the cueball. It sounds more complicated than it is, but if I drew it I'd give away the whole system.
Click to expand...
Sounds good.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Here's my original question: (it is slightly edited for more clarity)

"Then what would YOU estimate the number of shots that could be made or cut angles by Joe's "training balls" when used for either a right or left cut from 1 degree up to about 88 degrees" ?

All of them, none of them, a certain percentage of them IF THEY WERE STRUCK RIGHT ON THE NUMBERS WITH A GOOD STROKE??
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the question I answered in the post you quoted.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Straightpool_99 said:
It's a contact point to contact point aiming system, if you are familiar with those. It is really a simple concept, even if you would understand the system quite easily when explained, I don't think you could get the full benefit of it witout the material, especially the balls and the booklet.

The concept is that the object- and cue ball is divided into 10 contact points that connect with a specific diamond and the pocket. If you put the object ball on the line between the diamond point and the pocket, then that particular number on the ball is the point you need to hit with the corresponding point on the cueball. It sounds more complicated than it is, but if I drew it I'd give away the whole system.
Click to expand...

Well said! Without giving away Joe's actual system, this is a good description without getting into specific details.

I think the real benefit of using the system isn't in the CP2CP, but instead it's the angles he's identified to get the user to start seeing the relationship between the cue ball, object ball and intended pocket.

By dividing up a grid of 10 basic angles and steering the player toward the corresponding CB/OB overlap, you can learn to correctly visualize the angle needed for the pot. The basic angles get you on or very close to a number to use for a CP2CP setup which should be the goal of any aiming system.

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
Armchair QB on a Sunday. Your intent was to disrupt with your opinion. SOP View attachment 403965




Nice try at the obfuscation, but the confusion is all yours. It's obvious you're posting for attention and when you're not the center of attention you resort to discrediting any available thread. Don't be butthurt...find another thread! View attachment 403967

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...
Mike, I just realized I've probably misunderstood you. When you said the system identifies 10 shot lines to the corner and side pockets, I assumed you were talking only about the numbers on the balls, forgetting that the shot lines also correspond to diamond locations on the table.

I think that means your description is right and I was wrong to question it. Sorry about that and for the unnecessary detour.

pj <- giving myself detention
chgo
 
Patrick,

No need for detention. You said what you thought. I would welcome a constructive approach from you instead of having to defend my posting.

I, like you, am very interested in dissecting this game. I only try to offer food for thought and believe in the idea that two heads are better than one. I don't have many answers, but I enjoy finding them. If you have anything you'd like to share on the system, I'd be glad to hear it. :cool:

Best,
Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top