And what systems claim to never need any adjustments? I don't know of any that claim that. CTE is a center ball aiming system. Has been said thousands of times, that if you need to use english, then you adjust for it the same way you would if you weren't using CTE. Same with 90/90, ect.
joe tucker aiming system
- Thread starter bbb
- Start date
And what systems claim to never need any adjustments? I don't know of any that claim that. CTE is a center ball aiming system. Has been said thousands of times, that if you need to use english, then you adjust for it the same way you would if you weren't using CTE. Same with 90/90, ect.
I haven't mentioned CTE with a single word. Nor do I intend to, ever again, except maybe in passing. All I'm saying is that an aiming system is not much of a system IMO, without detailed instructions on how exactly to make your adjustments and at least an attempt mad at describing how much of an adjustment is needed for the most common categories of shots. That is an important criteria for judging any system.
I'm not going to be sucked into the CTE maelstrom of discussing the same thing for 15 years, going round and round in a circle. What is the point of stating ones opinion over and over, without ever listening to others? Looking at the examples brought to light by Lou Figueroa, all the live participants in the debate hold exactly the same opinions now as they did 15 years ago... In todays society that is pretty much equal to a lifetime. Nothing has been achieved, it's completely pointless. One that parttakes in this utterly futile endeavour is better off talking into a recording device and then playing it back!
From now on I trust only my own findings, made at the table. Don't worry I won't bring them up anymore, either. There is a chance I will buy Stans book, out of pure curiosity about what he has put in there, how the illustrations of the visuals look and if he's explaining things differently in writing, though. Maybe I'll even try some of it if it looks different from what I expect. I'm nothing if not curious, but I sure won't make the mistake of ever bringing it up here, no matter what.
Last edited:
It's silly to state that any aiming system must take into account all details pertinent to any possible shot. Such as SIT, CIT, english, deflection, squirt, squerve, masse' effect, ect. Just as it would be silly to state that any diamond system for kicking must take into account all the above plus, cloth friction, cloth tightness, rail material, diamond placement accuracy (varies from man. to manufacturer) ect.
I don't know who said what here, so I'm not taking sides - but this is true, and it's one of the frequent ways these discussions get sidetracked.
pj
chgo
WTH, I never said all that. How about having an estimated amount of compensation for stun, or slow shots for instance? Is that so impossible? At least get someone in the ballpark. Joe Tucker does it, Ekkes does it, why can't everybody else?
Also, as you know any diamond system is CRITICALLY dependent on spin/speed, or lack thereof depending on the system. They therefore have "calibration shots" which must be hit accurately, to understand how much spin to use. When you approach the limits of the system, again you need to compensate, because usually the function best in a middle range. Again, nice to have some instruction on how to compensate, and how much. Grady does this in his videos. So it is not impossible. Also many diamond system books will show you how to compensate for new or old cloth as well. You don't even need to know about the cushions and cloth many times, you just need to know if the table banks long or short. But then, you get a solution for that, most of the time. Ok, you will need feel, but you don't have to start way off in your estimations. Most of the factors you mention are total strawmen, and you know it, but others are vitally important!
But ok, lets say all of the above is stupid and wrong, why have any system at all? I mean the diamond system without calibration and compensations is COMPLETELY USELESS for billiards (except maybe for a usually narrow, optimal range). Sure you might luck in a billliard now and then, but you won't be accurate. You might as well forget the diamonds completely and play entirely by feel. It's not much difference in the straight in pots. Any idiot can tell you the approximate shotline after playing intensively for a year or so. But the devil is in the details. Again, no details, not even essential ones like the ones I mention, means that the system is not much better for aiming than pure feel. The only benefit would then be the effect on the PSR. Again IMO.
The absolute minimum a commercial system can do (and by not doing it, it's imo not a system at all) is to show you HOW to compensate. In a pivot system, should you paralell shift, should you "extend the pivot" should you add backhand english etc. What about the diamond system, should you change speed, add low/high, add/remove spin etc. Some of these work better than others. Some can make the system fail completely. So, good to know, maybe? Just asking.
Last edited:
How about aiming billiards and caroms ?
Cheating the pocket ?
Cheating the pocket ?
Has anybody bought the numbered balls and learned the system besides the couple of posters that responded?
I'd like to compare notes and discuss exceptions to the rules on certain shot alignments because certain angles use different 0-9 placement. I'm sure there're other anomalies yet to be discovered. :smile:
Best,
Mike
I'd like to compare notes and discuss exceptions to the rules on certain shot alignments because certain angles use different 0-9 placement. I'm sure there're other anomalies yet to be discovered. :smile:
Best,
Mike
I got the Aiming Workout E-Book. In it are "diagrams" of the numbered balls to cut out and use for practice on something like a kitchen table. I tried it out on mine, obviously needing to imagine where the pockets are.
I got the book more for the workout aspect over the system itself, but I can see how it might be useful.
Yes. The bulk of the book is 185 different shots into the corner pockets. The workout consists of making each shot (no matter how many times it takes), and then counting your number of misses at the end.
The main goal is to lower your number of misses each workout. There is also a secondary workout that is targeted for the side pockets, but I don't remember exactly how many shots there are for that section.
For each shot, he tells you which line up or CP2CP to use.
OK. He has a 2 dvd set that has a demo for the aiming workout with a scoring sheet. I became a member on his website a while back and the dvds are available for viewing.
From my experience the last few weeks using the system, the shot lines or something very close to the shot lines come up quite a bit. Joe even mentions how strong the identified angles are to quickly getting on the correct shot line. Call me lazy, but it takes a lot of guesswork out of visualizing the object ball path to the pocket.
I've found you can also adjust for deflection, speed and throw fairly consistently after working on the aiming drills. It takes quite a bit of practice which I think is worth the effort if you want to improve.
Best,
Mike
Without regard to cut angles, the contact point, that sends it to the target, on the circumference of the OB, once identified, could be ascribed one of the 0 - 9 numbers - or very close to one of them.
Unlike fractional obverse aiming where each 1/8 etc., is the same width, the JT numbers are farther apart from 0 to 4 and closer together from 5 - 9 (because the ball is round) which can be very useful for some.
One can change the numbers on the CB to compensate for CIT or squirt which makes it even more useful.
Be well.
Unlike fractional obverse aiming where each 1/8 etc., is the same width, the JT numbers are farther apart from 0 to 4 and closer together from 5 - 9 (because the ball is round) which can be very useful for some.
One can change the numbers on the CB to compensate for CIT or squirt which makes it even more useful.
Be well.
FYI, here's a diagram of the lines that the OB must be on to be a perfect "numbered" cut (0 to 9) to the center of the top right corner pocket. Because of pocket slop the OB can be a little (up to an inch or so) off a line and still go as a numbered cut. All other OB positions are "in-between" cuts.
There are fewer in-between cuts closer to the pocket and more in-between cuts farther from the pocket. Very close to the pocket there are no in-between cuts. At the distance of the numbers in the diagram there are 2 or 3 in-between cuts for every numbered cut. At the farthest distance there are 6 or more in-between cuts for every numbered cut.
No point - just adding to the database.
pj
chgo
View attachment 38792
There are fewer in-between cuts closer to the pocket and more in-between cuts farther from the pocket. Very close to the pocket there are no in-between cuts. At the distance of the numbers in the diagram there are 2 or 3 in-between cuts for every numbered cut. At the farthest distance there are 6 or more in-between cuts for every numbered cut.
No point - just adding to the database.
pj
chgo
View attachment 38792
Attachments
Last edited:
Nice work on the diagrams. :thumbup:
The 7 and 8 cuts can be pocketed using 8 and 9 respectively on the thinner cuts. The 0 cuts will go even if the ball is a couple of inches off of the rail by reducing the speed and letting throw grab the ball. One angle is missing, the 4.5 angle. It runs from the corner of the side pocket (farthest away from the corner pocket) to the pocket. There are also angles to the side pockets.
There is some interesting interplay when the numbers are used to align to these angles for back cuts and angles in the center of the table around 20 degrees or less. I haven't had enough time to catalogue them, but for sure, simple straightish cuts to the hole can be deceiving. This system brings them to light. More later.
If you have trouble with back cuts, this is your system. Pretty much anywhere on the table you get a correct look at them. I was surprised how my perception was misled on several types of back cuts. Won't get fooled, again!
You can use the numbers for straight in shots, too. I've occasionally disagreed with the numbers and rattled them. The numbers are always right. :frown:
Best,
Mike
The 7 and 8 cuts can be pocketed using 8 and 9 respectively on the thinner cuts. The 0 cuts will go even if the ball is a couple of inches off of the rail by reducing the speed and letting throw grab the ball. One angle is missing, the 4.5 angle. It runs from the corner of the side pocket (farthest away from the corner pocket) to the pocket. There are also angles to the side pockets.
There is some interesting interplay when the numbers are used to align to these angles for back cuts and angles in the center of the table around 20 degrees or less. I haven't had enough time to catalogue them, but for sure, simple straightish cuts to the hole can be deceiving. This system brings them to light. More later.
If you have trouble with back cuts, this is your system. Pretty much anywhere on the table you get a correct look at them. I was surprised how my perception was misled on several types of back cuts. Won't get fooled, again!
You can use the numbers for straight in shots, too. I've occasionally disagreed with the numbers and rattled them. The numbers are always right. :frown:
Best,
Mike
Last edited:
Here's the same thing for a side pocket (mostly because I like the way it looks).
pj
chgo
View attachment 44112
pj
chgo
View attachment 44112
Attachments
Probably the most interesting part of this system when you first start using it is the idea that no matter where on the angle line the object ball sits, you can pocket it by using the corresponding number on the cue ball.
For instance, put the cue ball at the end of the table away from the pocket and move the object ball any where on the same angle line to pocket it. Or leave the object in one spot and move the cue ball anywhere up table. If it's a makeable shot, you just use the angle number the object ball is sitting on to pocket it.
If it's on angle 3, as long as the shot is possible, you can move the object ball anywhere on the 3 angle line and/or move the cue ball anywhere you'd like. You hit the 3 point on both balls and it'll pocket (of course, adjustments are made for speed, spin, etc.).
Best,
Mike
For instance, put the cue ball at the end of the table away from the pocket and move the object ball any where on the same angle line to pocket it. Or leave the object in one spot and move the cue ball anywhere up table. If it's a makeable shot, you just use the angle number the object ball is sitting on to pocket it.
If it's on angle 3, as long as the shot is possible, you can move the object ball anywhere on the 3 angle line and/or move the cue ball anywhere you'd like. You hit the 3 point on both balls and it'll pocket (of course, adjustments are made for speed, spin, etc.).
Best,
Mike
45 degree cut from the side pocket is 4.5 on the OB to the 4.5 on the CB. I think that 5 to 5 might work with center CB (stun) letting CIT reduce the 50 degree angle to the desired 45 degree...for me.
Just saying until I try it.
Be well.
Last edited:
JB,
No point but at the farthest distances there needs to be more than 9 numbers.
At my advanced age, 4" pockets and failing eye sight, I can barely handle 9.
Be well.:smile:
Hi Mike,
Unless I am missing something that sounds like some 3 letter acronym mumbo jumbo.
If the OB is an a 3 line that must be for a shot where the balls are parallel to the rail.
If you move the cue ball way off the line & change the angle, how can it still be a 3 to 3?
You have either lessened or increased the angle.
Or is my reading comprehension & logic off before I finish my first cup of coffee?
Best 2 Ya.
PS Are PJ's diagrams how Joe Tucker designates discerning the shots? I thought it was a direct diamond to number relationship. I know PJ's 'protractor' is accurate, but I thought Joe's method was different
Last edited:
This is a prime example of what I've been saying about everybody looking at things differently or interpreting them not the same way.
I know what he is talking about. It is way easier to show somebody at the table.