joe tucker aiming system

[SpiderWebComm]

Yes, that's the question I answered in the post you quoted.

pj
chgo

No it isn't and it's not even close. You chose to throw one of your straw dog diversionary tactics out by moving it into a completely different direction and confined it to a spot shot accuracy rate which had nothing to do with what I asked.

And now you're refusing to answer it at all by saying that you answered it. Yet you want and demand everyone of your erroneous leading questions answered when it pertains to Stan's methods.

You're the CTP2CTP user and have been for years. So was I at one time and am very familiar with Joe Tucker's system and worked many long hours with the training balls and table grid diagrams. Here's something you should shine in where you actually know what you're talking about. But like most other areas, maybe you don't.

Here's the question again: ""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??

Are you saying only 40% of all shots can be made by using his number matching system yet you choose to use contact point aiming? What do you do differently to improve the %? Now I see why you play the way you do.

Here's a more serious question: Have you had dementia for a long time or is it just hitting you recently?

EDIT: I just noticed you edited YOUR POST with additional percentages for other shots.

So here's the next question: What do YOU do or think needs to be done to fill in the gaps between the marks to INCREASE the potting percentages for all shots ranging from 1 degree to 88 degrees of cut angles assuming a straight stroke perfectly delivered? Realistically, every shot on the table from 1 - 88 degrees can be and should be made with contact point aiming as long as there are no other blocking balls.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I, like you, am very interested in dissecting this game.
Mike

I'm glad you remembered to use those commas and place them in the correct positions. Otherwise, heaven forbid!!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

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

Now I know Pat Johnson has some dementia going on within his brain. He has NEVER apologized or admitted being wrong about anything to a " subaltern mere mortal".

I think it would be unfair to yourself to consider anything less than 15 years.

 

[Mikjary]

Not to beat a dead horse, but for the sake of discussion, I'm going to set up a controlled sampling of the 10 basic shot angles and see what the percentage really is.

Patrick's comments on the misleading part deserve a look see to get a proper ruling. I estimated and could be wrong. This may help to get an idea of what Joe's system is about.


Best,
Mike

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Not to beat a dead horse, but for the sake of discussion, I'm going to set up a controlled sampling of the 10 basic shot angles and see what the percentage really is.

Patrick's comments on the misleading part deserve a look see to get a proper ruling. I estimated and could be wrong. This may help to get an idea of what Joe's system is about.


Best,
Mike

FYI, I measured the circle around the "zero" and it's 10mm in diameter. It's also
5mm from the middle of the "zero" to the middle of "1". 5mm from the middle of "1 to the middle of "2" with 5mm between each of the numbers to "9".

If Joe's system doesn't cover each and every shot angle between 1 degree up to 88 degrees, then how can the 4mm in between each number be seen or modified to strike there? How do those who use contact point aiming not only see such a tiny
(almost pin hole size) and then adjust to it?

When you're looking straight on at the zero, you can only see numbers zero through six. Seven, eight, and nine can't be seen unless you move your head position and eyes around to the side of the ball on the OB.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Here's the question again: ""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" ?

Again, I've answered that question - you just don't understand the answer. The takehome is this: it depends on the shot distance. That means there isn't a single answer.

Are you saying only 40% of all shots can be made by using his number matching system

As I said (and you clearly don't understand), 40% of spot shots. A different percentage for shots of other lengths (and other angles into the pocket). If you want to estimate an average percentage for all shots, I've also given you some other data with which to do that (not that I expect you to understand it).

...yet you choose to use contact point aiming? What do you do differently to improve the %?

I've also answered this question (do you actually read posts?) - I do exactly what you (and everybody else) do: use "practiced estimation". The only difference is that I realize it.

So here's the next question: What do YOU do or think needs to be done to fill in the gaps between the marks

You just asked that question.

pj <- maybe some Adderall
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

FYI, I measured the circle around the "zero" and it's 10mm in diameter. It's also 5mm from the middle of the "zero" to the middle of "1". 5mm from the middle of "1 to the middle of "2" with 5mm between each of the numbers to "9".

Yes, the math bears that out (see below).

How do those who use contact point aiming not only see such a tiny (almost pin hole size) and then adjust to it?

You don't "adjust to it" if you start with it.

As for "seeing" it, some can; some can't - it's difficult for lots of people, but it gets easier with practice.

pj
chgo

View attachment 98744

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You don't "adjust to it" if you start with it.

As for "seeing" it, some can; some can't - it's difficult for lots of people, but it gets easier with practice.

pj
chgo

If you start with it, when...where...and why do the "feel adjustments" need to take place? You've posted in the past that you use contact points but adjust from there with feel. What are you seeing that tells you it just isn't right. How much adjustment is needed and how is this super secret information for those who can't see it described and passed on to others so they can use it?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you start with it, when...where...and why do the "feel adjustments" need to take place?

Here's a comparison of how practiced estimation ("feel") is used...

...with reference angles (like Tucker's, fractions, CTE etc.):

- to choose the closest reference angle
- to estimate the difference between the reference and actual cut angle
- to hit the actual cut angle

...with contact point:

- to visualize the contact point
- to hit the contact point

pj
chgo

 

[ps611846]

Here's a comparison of how practiced estimation ("feel") is used...

...with reference angles (like Tucker's, fractions, CTE etc.):

- to choose the closest reference angle
- to estimate the difference between the reference and actual cut angle
- to hit the actual cut angle

...with contact point:

- to visualize the contact point
- to hit the contact point

pj
chgo

The contact point for what kind of stroke ?
Can you visualize different contact points for different strokes ?
Or do you know how to adjust your stance for different strokes ?
Or is it all just "luck" ???

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Here's a comparison of how practiced estimation ("feel") is used...

...with reference angles (like Tucker's, fractions, CTE etc.):

- to choose the closest reference angle
- to estimate the difference between the reference and actual cut angle
- to hit the actual cut angle

...with contact point:

- to visualize the contact point
- to hit the contact point

pj
chgo

Do you have a protractor to get the actual cut angle?

How are you able to gauge the exact cut angle on every shot that comes up?

So when using Tucker's method, you're able to see TWO pin holes that need to connect. You have to hit the contact point with the exact equal and opposite pin hole of the CB. How are you able to see those distances with 67 year old failing geezer eyes?

On contact point are you always visualizing the exact spot within 2mm and what are your steps to obtain it?

You're hitting the contact point with what on the CB? Obviously it's also a contact point on the other side of the ball, but where and how are you seeing or gauging it?

And the question that needs to be asked for everything is:

How is this super secret information for those who can't see it or estimate angles described and passed on so they can use it?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Do you have a protractor to get the actual cut angle?

Do you have one to get the fractional cut angle?

I see the point on the CB that's directly opposite the pocket - that's my target.

You see a point that's midway between CB edges or midway between CB center and edge or one of Joe's 1/9-of-1/4 reference numbers, that's somewhere near your target (if you choose the right one), and then adjust "blindly" to the target I've already found visually.

Your "objective" landmarks are no more objective than mine - and they're lots more complicated to use.

pj
chgo

 

[Mikjary]

FYI, I measured the circle around the "zero" and it's 10mm in diameter. It's also
5mm from the middle of the "zero" to the middle of "1". 5mm from the middle of "1 to the middle of "2" with 5mm between each of the numbers to "9".

If Joe's system doesn't cover each and every shot angle between 1 degree up to 88 degrees, then how can the 4mm in between each number be seen or modified to strike there? How do those who use contact point aiming not only see such a tiny
(almost pin hole size) and then adjust to it?

When you're looking straight on at the zero, you can only see numbers zero through six. Seven, eight, and nine can't be seen unless you move your head position and eyes around to the side of the ball on the OB.

This is very useful information that saves me a step in the process. Another point that's been assumed and not mentioned yet is that these 10 angles refer to one corner pocket or 40 angles for 4 pockets. Joe adds in a 4 1/2 angle to bring the total to 44 basic angles.

The side pockets have 11 each to bring the total to 66 angles to a pocket. An angle is a line between a point on the rail and the pocket. If a ball is anywhere on this line (think 2 1/4 inches x 2 = 4 1/2 inches wide line) or partially touching this line , it's sitting in one of the angles. Unless Joe comes on here and okays an actual diagram of these angles, I won't be showing them.

An argument for half angles could be made for numbers 1-8 for the corner pockets which I find easy to use, bringing an additional 32 more angles to the sum of 98 angles. If I diagrammed these first 66 angles to pockets, the table would probably look vey confusing and congested.

My original assessment was for about 75% of balls randomly sitting on an angle or very close to the line. I'll just have to see.

Best,
Mike

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Do you have one to get the fractional cut angle?

Don't need one since a specific cut angle isn't needed nor is it fractional

I see the point on the CB that's directly opposite the pocket - that's my target.

And it doesn't vary 1mm as you walk back to the CB to settle in and start the lizard movement I assume?

You see a point that's midway between CB edges or midway between CB center and edge or one of Joe's 1/9-of-1/4 reference numbers, that's somewhere near your target (if you choose the right one), and then adjust "blindly" to the target I've already found visually.

You have two targets and never said how you line it up with the OB target.. It's on the CB.

Your "objective" landmarks are no more objective than mine - and they're lots more complicated to use.

pj
chgo

NOPE, not at all. It's your belief and constant claim that's untrue.

The difference is I know how to use both contact point or equal & opposite as well as CTE. You only use one which is CP and don't know enough about the other as it's actually done on the table or internalized it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you guys who want compare contact point aiming with other kinds, start a new thread and I'll be glad to chime in. We've already disrupted this thread enough.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

If you guys who want compare contact point aiming with other kinds, start a new thread and I'll be glad to chime in. We've already disrupted this thread enough.

pj
chgo

Keep chiming in because "we guys" have been talking about Joe's system and contact point aiming the entire time and Mike is going to do things on a real pool table with it...something you never do.

You're doing a nice job of throwing aspects of other kinds of systems so follow you own advice.

 

[MitchDAZB]

What was the question again?

 

[Mikjary]

If you guys who want compare contact point aiming with other kinds, start a new thread and I'll be glad to chime in. We've already disrupted this thread enough.

pj
chgo

Keep chiming in because "we guys" have been talking about Joe's system and contact point aiming the entire time and Mike is going to do things on a real pool table with it...something you never do.

You're doing a nice job of throwing aspects of other kinds of systems so follow you own advice.

Go ahead and keep posting. You guys are bringing up some good points.

What was the question again?

LOL :thumbup:

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

I just spent the last few hours on the 11 basic angles of Joe Tucker's Aiming By The Numbers Method. I used 10 dry 10 ball breaks to have 100 balls on the table to see what percentage of object balls fall on the 11 basic angles.

To clarify, an angle is from point on a rail to a pocket. If a part of the object ball falls anywhere on this line, it is considered in one of the 11 angles. Without using the side pockets, 89 out of 100 balls fell on shot lines to the corner pockets.

There are 44 shot lines to corner pockets (11 per pocket) and they do cover a considerable amount of the table. If I include the side pockets, the number goes up to 95/100 balls fell on shot lines. Of course, this will vary with each test and I may have stumbled on the highest ever recorded amount of balls on the shot line. I wouldn't know unless I tortured myself for many more hours.

Another factor is to what pocket is the angle/object ball directed to and is the cue ball in the right position to shoot to that pocket? The ball may be on a shot line, but the cue ball may be at the other end of the table to shoot in the opposite direction.

So, I played 5 more dry breaks where I got a shot at the 1 ball. This forced me to play position not to a designated angle and be at the mercy of table traffic. If I missed (still learning how to hit those numbers on the cue ball and object ball), I manually pocketed the ball and played the resulting position to continue.

As expected, my percentage dropped, but not by much. For 5 racks, allowing for corner pockets only, 40/50 balls or an 80% average found one of the 11 angles. Including side pockets, my percentage moved up to 43/50 or 86%.

To me, this system has merit and with quite a bit of practice, could be very accurate. The numbering system on the balls also corresponds to the cut angle identified on the table. I simply note what angle line the object ball is sitting on and use the related numbers/contact points on the balls to gain the correct alignment. I like that!

Best,
Mike

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I just spent the last few hours on the 11 basic angles of Joe Tucker's Aiming By The Numbers Method. I used 10 dry 10 ball breaks to have 100 balls on the table to see what percentage of object balls fall on the 11 basic angles.

To clarify, an angle is from point on a rail to a pocket. If a part of the object ball falls anywhere on this line, it is considered in one of the 11 angles. Without using the side pockets, 89 out of 100 balls fell on shot lines to the corner pockets.

There are 44 shot lines to corner pockets (11 per pocket) and they do cover a considerable amount of the table. If I include the side pockets, the number goes up to 95/100 balls fell on shot lines. Of course, this will vary with each test and I may have stumbled on the highest ever recorded amount of balls on the shot line. I wouldn't know unless I tortured myself for many more hours.

Another factor is to what pocket is the angle/object ball directed to and is the cue ball in the right position to shoot to that pocket? The ball may be on a shot line, but the cue ball may be at the other end of the table to shoot in the opposite direction.

So, I played 5 more dry breaks where I got a shot at the 1 ball. This forced me to play position not to a designated angle and be at the mercy of table traffic. If I missed (still learning how to hit those numbers on the cue ball and object ball), I manually pocketed the ball and played the resulting position to continue.

As expected, my percentage dropped, but not by much. For 5 racks, allowing for corner pockets only, 40/50 balls or an 80% average found one of the 11 angles. Including side pockets, my percentage moved up to 43/50 or 86%.

To me, this system has merit and with quite a bit of practice, could be very accurate. The numbering system on the balls also corresponds to the cut angle identified on the table. I simply note what angle line the object ball is sitting on and use the related numbers/contact points on the balls to gain the correct alignment. I like that!

Best,
Mike

So in other words once you determine the angle line, your contact points based on the numbers are the sole focus to connect the two. There's no adjusting, no feel to guess where the balls should impact each other, no lizard head movement to take your eyes and focus from the two numbers which gives a different perspective, and no deviating for what you may think could require an adjustment by aiming 'between" the numbers....correct?

It'll be interesting to see a comparison between your numbers and results to PJ's once he adds to this conversation from actually doing similar testing AT THE TABLE with real balls and a cue.

I'm sure there would also be a number of changes or improvements to make it more accurate based on "feel" and adjustments for the "tweener" number shots that make his contact point aiming infallible. We can't do it because of inferior spatial intelligence. I'm looking forward to seeing it described so we can all implement the changes to become better players.