joe tucker aiming system

bbb said:
dont shoot the messenger .......please....:smile:
but those that post exact diagrams of tuckers stuff is keeping the interested from buying the dvd from him ( providing the info for free.....:mad: not good )
he did the work
he should get rewarded (imho)
buy the dvd if you you really want to learn his system
jmho
icbw
Click to expand...

Larry,

I joined Joe's website and found quite a bit of info on this system. He's got a lot of workouts for the system and a 2 part dvd to go along with it. The dvd has a lot of Joe's insight for using the different angles. This thread is just the basics.

Until I read his literature and watched the videos, I had several misconceptions and was hitting the wrong number combinations on the balls. I even PMed Joe to get his input on this thread and hopefully he'll pay a visit.


Patrick Johnson said:
Mike's description and my simple drawings don't give away much and are much more likely to raise interest than diminish it - I think they're good advertising for Tucker. A lot of the product's value is in the instructions, drills, presentations and training materials.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment of the value this thread has been for Joe's system. Up until a few weeks ago, I gave it a quick look and thought it was just CP2CP aiming...nothing new. I was definitely surprised by what I found and learned some new info to boot. I'd never have tried it out without this thread.

Best,
Mike
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Mike's description and my simple drawings don't give away much and are much more likely to raise interest than diminish it - I think they're good advertising for Tucker. A lot of the product's value is in the instructions, drills, presentations and training materials.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Mikjary said:
Larry,

I joined Joe's website and found quite a bit of info on this system. He's got a lot of workouts for the system and a 2 part dvd to go along with it. The dvd has a lot of Joe's insight for using the different angles. This thread is just the basics.

Until I read his literature and watched the videos, I had several misconceptions and was hitting the wrong number combinations on the balls. I even PMed Joe to get his input on this thread and hopefully he'll pay a visit.




I agree with your assessment of the value this thread has been for Joe's system. Up until a few weeks ago, I gave it a quick look and thought it was just CP2CP aiming...nothing new. I was definitely surprised by what I found and learned some new info to boot. I'd never have tried it out without this thread.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...
patrick and mike
maybe i was just alittle grumpy from this flu bug i got......:embarrassed2:
i like joe's products and believe they are very helpfull
if the discussion helps to spur someone to buy the product thats great...:smile:
larry
 
Last edited:
Here a composite picture with angles looking from above the ball and what the shooter sees as dots on the equator. With '0' at the center, look at the distance between '8' and '9'.

ball.JPG

Be well
 
LAMas said:
Here a composite picture with angles looking from above the ball and what the shooter sees as dots on the equator. With '0' at the center, look at the distance between '8' and '9'.

View attachment 405173

Be well
Click to expand...

E,

Is that not what makes those long thin cuts so 'not easy', regardless of what method one uses.

I found early on, that for me, hitting them with outside english increased the rate of success, for me.

Now I'm using TOI with even more success, for me.

Best 2 You & All & You Stay Well.
 
bbb said:
patrick and mike
maybe i was just alittle grumpy from this flu bug i got......:embarrassed2:
i like joe's products and believe they are very helpfull
if the discussion helps to spur someone to buy the product thats great...:smile:
larry
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that, Larry. Beat the bug before the holidays get here. :)

You made a valid point as far as I'm concerned. No offense was taken.

I was wondering if Joe would pop in here and give us a few more pointers. His dvds are chocked full of gems. I also own the Third Eye Stroke Trainer and Racking Secrets II.

As a member of his website, his dvd workouts are available to me to train with including his aiming method. Here's a link. http://www.joetucker.net/instructio...al_checkout_return&token=EC-1DC917774X931672T

Best,
Mike
 
LAMas said:
Here a composite picture with angles looking from above the ball and what the shooter sees as dots on the equator. With '0' at the center, look at the distance between '8' and '9'.

View attachment 405173

Be well
Click to expand...

Joe gives some info on how to cut the balls thin on his dvd that works.

Me, I use Geno's Perfect Aim and (NOOO! Not Again!) my dominant eye in the right place. :eek:

Best,
Mike
 
Tucker's System Reviewed (in 2007)

I forgot I had reviewed Tucker's aiming system several years ago. Here's that post.

pj
chgo

Joe Tucker's Aiming System - 10-21-2007, 10:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got a chance to look at Joe Tucker's Aiming System over the past few weeks, and thought I'd share my impressions of it.

The materials for the system are two CDs and a spiral-bound workbook which work together to explain the system and guide you through a program of 24 practice drills to familiarize you with it. Joe himself is your teacher, guide and coach on the CDs, explaining and demonstrating the system in a clear and personable way with plenty of visual aids. Joe actually shoots each of the practice workouts with you, explaining how he makes (and sometimes misses) each shot and encouraging you to "stick with it" as he does. It's like having Joe as your personal trainer and workout partner, which adds real value to the package.

Joe's Aiming System is like Joe himself: straightforward, sensible and user friendly. It's an "index angle system" like some others we know of, dividing the OB and CB into a fixed number of index angles for easier memorization of aiming alignments, but it differs from other index angle systems in some important ways.

It asks you to memorize 9 evenly spaced index angles per quarter ball (for left cuts or right cuts), spaced 10 degrees (about 5mm or 1/5 inch) apart. This is more index angles than other systems so it's a little more work to memorize them, but if you can cope with that it pays off by reducing the number and size of adjustments needed for those pesky in-between shots. Joe acknowledges the in-between angles and suggests fractional angles between the 9 index angles for them, although the instructions and practice drills stick mostly to memorizing the 9 basic angles.

The two big operational differences between Joe's System and other index angle systems are:

1. There are no CB/OB overlaps to associate with cut angles in Joe's System - no "1/2 ball overlap = 30 degree cut" or anything like that. Instead Joe teaches you to match the OB contact point (found in the usual ways) with its corresponding CB contact point using matching numbered index points on both balls. Focusing on the contact points is a 3-dimensional visualization compared with the 2-dimensional visualization of focusing on CB/OB overlaps, which might suit some players better than others.

2. Joe's index angles are visualized in relation to the table's axes rather than to the CB/OB centerline. This means that a "#3 cut" isn't 3 clicks from a straight-on shot but rather 3 clicks from a cut parallel to the rail. It's just as geometrically accurate, but it's a non-traditional way of visualizing CB/OB alignments which might also suit some players better than others.

Pros and cons:

I like the realism of Joe's System, with its greater number of index angles, its clear acknowledgement of the in-between shots that require greater refinement of the system and its focus on drills to familiarize the shooter with the index angles. I also like the focus on contact points, which I believe is ultimately more accurate and more instructive than the "overlap" methods, although it may not be for everybody. I especially like Joe himself and the way he works right alongside the student to show exactly how the drills are done and gives tips and encouragement along the way.

I have mild misgivings about orienting the index angles to the table rather than to the CB/OB centerline, because it's a little less intuitive and maybe a little more prone to error. But I think even for those who find this disorienting it will be less and less a factor as the student becomes familiar with the system, and it has the potential advantage of identifying indexed shot angles that are the same for a given OB no matter where the CB is.

All in all, Joe Tucker's Aiming System is a geometrically correct and potentially very accurate way of indexing the CB and OB contact points so they can be matched up in a systematic, repeatable way. I recommend it for those who want to visualize contact points but could use some help doing it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
Excellent review, pj.

For me, I welcome the fact that JT "orients the index angles to the table rather than to the CB/OB centerline". To me, that means there's nothing to calculate. It's dead simple. Each of us sees things slightly differently, so to each his own.

Personally, I can't visualize fractional hits (other than a half ball) to save my life. I followed JT's "dining room table" suggestion years ago to acclimate myself to the numbers, and have enjoyed the system ever since.

Thanks again for the re-post, pj.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I forgot I had reviewed Tucker's aiming system several years ago. Here's that post.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


Here's something else you probably forgot back when Joe was discussing technique with me about PIVOTING in his Contact Point aiming system.

Pivoting is the worst sin a pool player can commit in your opinion nor something you consider doing for yourself, but Joe does admit to doing it with HIS system and something you have never understood with Hal's 3 LINE (angle) aiming systems which were only AIM POINTS PRE-PIVOT, not CONTACT OR STRIKE POINTS on the OB.

If you want to debate it further, argue with yourself. JOE POSTED IT.
It might throw a small monkey wrench into the exact matching of the numbers and geometric perfection with slight pivot.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=122451&highlight=colin's+potting+test&page=5

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Same page link as above - dialog between Fred Agnir and Joe Tucker:

Originally Posted by Cornerman

In case you didn't know Joe, this is very similar to Hal Houle's method. Same basic idea as far a breaking the cueball up into sections and aiming that section line to the object ball center or edge. Hal starts with just three total cueball lines (left 1/4, center, right quarter) aiming to the center or edge of the object ball. That 1/4 line on the cueball is what he's refered to the edge of the "small ball," an imaginary circle 1/2 a ball diameter (1/4 ball to the edge).

Like what you've describe with CJ and whoever wrote the "Ultimate Aiming System," I've added a few more sections, and by adding sections, it's always two at a time (left and right) until I stopped adding points because there seemed to be enough.

Fred

Oh I know Fred but CJ delivered it pretty much cut and dry, with a lot less negativity of others & with a little less mysticism. So maybe thats why I listened a little better. Plus he was running out like a mad man with it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
MitchDAZB said:
I welcome the fact that JT "orients the index angles to the table rather than to the CB/OB centerline". To me, that means there's nothing to calculate.
Click to expand...
Whether you visualize Tucker's numbers with zero facing the OB or facing the end rail, you use the same "equal-opposite" visualization (with the help of the numbers) to estimate the CB contact point. What different calculation is there either way?

The table-oriented numbering may be easier to visualize for some, but for me it's easier to visualize the numbers oriented with the CB/OB centerline, which is also my starting sight line. I'm sure the numbers are helpful in estimating the CB contact point either way.

Thanks again for the re-post, pj.
Click to expand...
Sure.

pj
chgo
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Pivoting is the worst sin a pool player can commit in your opinion
Click to expand...
This is another one of your fevered "us vs. them" fantasies. I don't think pivoting is necessarily bad, just that it's "cover" for finding the aim line by feel without admitting that to yourself.

If there wasn't an Aiming Forum riot every time it's suggested, we might be able to discuss it candidly and maybe find some objective benefit for it - maybe even improve it.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
This is another one of your fevered "us vs. them" fantasies. I don't think pivoting is necessarily bad, just that it's "cover" for finding the aim line by feel without admitting that to yourself.

For GOD sake! I knew it was coming. (I can use God since I believe)

If there wasn't an Aiming Forum riot every time it's suggested, we might be able to discuss it candidly and maybe find some objective benefit for it - maybe even improve it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You can damn well blame yourself for those riots. As long as you're around, it's a GIVEN and your post above is a prime example.

(argue with yourself now as I suggested)
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't think pivoting is necessarily bad, just that it's "cover" for finding the aim line by feel without admitting that to yourself.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I don't think Tucker uses pivots this way - I believe he has a more realistic understanding of the nature of aiming. In fact, he alludes to that in the quote of him above about how he understands CTE: "with a little less mysticism".

pj
chgo
 
SpiderWebComm said:
You can damn well blame yourself for those riots. As long as you're around, it's a GIVEN and your post above is a prime example.

(argue with yourself now as I suggested)
Click to expand...

Or, you could give some thought to what Patrick has been saying for all these years instead of having a knee-jerk reaction. Don't you think it is possible that you are subconsciously making adjustments? How can you rule out this possibility when you so gallantly admit you don't know or care how it works? You may not realize that you sometimes realign your cue on the last stroke the way Stan does. If you get lined up and pivot and take a practice stroke along that pivot line, but then change the angle of the cue to pocket the ball, what does that suggest to you? It tells me you are either not doing the CTE method correctly, or you are doing it correctly and then your subconscious steps in at the last split second to pocket the ball.

Unless Stan's new book proves otherwise, I think Patrick's explanation is probably correct. CTE provides a framework or placebo or something to occupy the conscious mind to allow the subconscious to get it right. This seems to be more beneficial for some people more than others.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
To be clear, I don't think Tucker uses pivots this way - I believe he has a more realistic understanding of the nature of aiming. In fact, he alludes to that in the quote of him above about how he understands CTE: "with a little less mysticism".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You conveniently left something out that Joe said which you're always guilty of doing:

Oh I know Fred but CJ delivered it pretty much cut and dry, with a lot less negativity of others"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top