Ron V aiming system video and diagrams

[Cuemaster98]

I can pivot by back hand with no movement of my hips, torso or head. I can move my body left or right and not move my bridge hand.

Takes a bit of practice for the coordination but both are now easy to me after doing maybe 10,000 pivoted shots. Probably took a few hundred shots to gain reasonable competence.

Colin

I think the difficulty with this is that PJ believe the pivot point is fix...it's not unless you glue the point on the cue to the spot of your bridge hand. Again in theory...mathematically...if you assume a fix pivot point than PJ is correct in his argument...but clearly that not the case. Even the act of pivoting change the pivot point...so how can you win? We're human..not robot.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[Koop]

Lastly, I have posted this before with no bites, not surprising.

Also, for anyone who subscribes to InsidePool, read Tom Simpson's advertisement for his pool school, specifically what he teaches on day 3.
Yep, it's the "aiming system of the pro's".
Anyone care to venture where he got that information? And he gets paid good money for it. Whether you buy it or not, why bash people on here who get paid nothing when others are making money from it?
I'm not saying it's wrong, just pointing out that if someone has a real beef with this stuff, take it up with the folks getting paid for giving the information out.
But then, what fun would that be?

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think the difficulty with this is that PJ believe the pivot point is fix...it's not unless you glue the point on the cue to the spot of your bridge hand. Again in theory...mathematically...if you assume a fix pivot point than PJ is correct in his argument...but clearly that not the case. Even the act of pivoting change the pivot point...so how can you win? We're human..not robot.

Regards,
Duc.

Duc,
Making a stable bridge is not that hard. Hence having a robot like bridge is not very hard.

Whatever lateral movement of the cue, within the bridge is very small, less than 1 mm imho. A pivot point is effectively within 3 inches of a bridge pivot for a fixed bridge for a somewhat clumsy V shaped bridge. It cannot be a foot or two away as seems to be suggested.

Dave's video didn't show that the bridge position was the same. It's impossible to tell that from the video. He even swapped the bridge to an open bridge and the swooped right to increase the cut angle during the stroke.

That doesn't contradict Dave's assertion that he doesn't pivot from the bridge. I agree with that. But I don't agree that his bridge was at the same position.

Colin

btw: It wasn't Patrick who said the bridge should be fixed, he argued that it can't be. It seems to me others propose that the bridge can be fixed and still make a different pivot.

 

[AnitoKid]

My thoughts...

A night before this thread was posted, I was with my good friend,
former Coach of the Philippine Billiards Team at AMF-Puyat.
He was teaching one of my Japanese friends, and I was just watching
intently from the sideline (so to speak) to pick up a pointer or two.

Then I noticed something new, an aiming method he was trying to teach
my pal from Japan - drawing with English (left or right) and how to do
it right.

And truth be told, I at first couldn't understand it when he
emphasized to make the aim on the OB "thick."

When my Japanese buddy went for a cigarette break, i politely asked him
if I could use his cue and learn that specific lesson. He obliged.
And Coach tried to explain it to me well. But truth be told, I was still a
bit confused on "how thick" should "thick" be!

And when I saw this thread, i.e.,, Ron's Aiming System -
I just couldn't believe it! I said to myself, "Could it be that this is similar
to what Coach was trying to teach me???!!!!"

And my following of the posts on this thread, particularly from those
who tried it out and shared their thoughts on how they went about it,
helped me finally determine to have another basis for aiming my shots
(not just by feel, visualization, or by memory alone)! And I like it! And I kid you not!

*I was practicing this afternoon with a pool friend of mine,
who is really very good in pool. I used Ron's system during our match
and my friend was VERY MUCH IMPRESSED with my pocketing!
And I kid you not!

But there were some shots that I missed using the system -
and couldn't figure it out why. And some shots, I felt I missed terribly!

When I got home, I reread the posts and saw kanj's post (i hope i got the spelling right),
mentioning again the less than or more than "2 diamonds apart" thing,
I suddenly realized the answer!


I'm going to try it again tomorrow! Wish me luck!


Much thanks to all of you who have tried the system and
posted your thoughts on it! Thank you very much, Cleary!

And more thank you's to Ron for sharing it with us all!
Thanks brother! Maraming salamat, Ron!

 

[Cuemaster98]

Man...that the internet for you. I'm sure PJ just want to acquire more knowledge as anyone else before he uses a system. Personally, the Swivel System from Ron give me more confident just in understanding how the line of aim can be easily found....the difficulty is and alway will be to be able to deliver the cue ball in that line of aim to make the object ball. It's one thing to know..but another to do. So practice, practice, practice...so this can be repeated. I'm sure this knowledge with practice will improve anyone games. Ron will be re-writing his book with hundreds of illustration.....hopefully this will be available to everyone at a cost of course. If information is free...people somehow don't put much of a value to it unless there's a charge.

So, how's $60.00 per hard copy sound? I'll get Kevin T. to market this on his late night show. LOL!! But seriously...Ron will be working on his new book with hundreds of illustration.

Want to become a real pool player..secrets guarded by Pro for years are now available to you...for only $60.00!!! A cure for every players even the PRO!!!

There's a lot of sudelty to this system so a personal lesson from RON is your best bet for a complete comprehension of this system

Regards,
Duc.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Dave,

I gave up quite a while back and you may want to consider the same. These guys will NEVER let up with the skepticism, regardless of how throrough you are in your explanation. Point is, they have said that they will not call the originators of the systems so why bother feeding into them? Wordsmithing is a good term because no matter how well you explain, you are being nitpicked to death.
In all honesty, I hope you pull off this bet because, IMO, this place is better without him instead of with him. I'm sure this will be critiqued as well but I could honestly give two shits. I won't respond beyond this. If people REALLY want this info and aren't looking to stroke their ego's, then all they have to do is pick up the phone. Hal, Ron, and Stan are all available.

Regards and I owe you a few beers when we meet.
Koop

Koop,

Talked to Hal for about 90 mins. Geez he's a charming bloke and fine conversationalist but I got no new knowledge from him despite repeated efforts. He gave willing answers, but all specious imho. To be frank, I don't think he knows what's going on in terms of geometrical explanation.

That sounds rude but I also don't think Ronnie O'Sullivan or Steve Davis or Efren Reyes knows what's going on in terms of the what and how of much of their aiming. I know several international cueists and I know they don't have a clue how they align or how their bridge affects their shots. At least, not in a way they are cognisant enough to explain it. They just see / feel when shots are going in.

I don't think it is remarkable to assume that is what is going on with people who have practised and coached pivot/aim systems. The often quoted no.1 coach in English snooker, Frank Callan, is guilty of similar misunderstandings when it comes to technical explanations. He's just lucky he doesn't visit forums where his theories would be shot to threads

That said, I'd still be happy to shout you, Spidey, Ron and Hal a beer, coz we've more in common than in difference. Though Internet discussions tend to focus us all towards intricate aspects where we disagree. :grin:

Colin

 

[Cuemaster98]

Colin, I think PJ argue that the hand can't be fixed......hence his bet. Hand can not be moved. He assume pivot point to be same base on his geometry....claim moving the cue with anything and pivot point is the same..not the case.

Regards,
Duc.

Duc,
Making a stable bridge is not that hard. Hence having a robot like bridge is not very hard.

Whatever lateral movement of the cue, within the bridge is very small, less than 1 mm imho. A pivot point is effectively within 3 inches of a bridge pivot for a fixed bridge for a somewhat clumsy V shaped bridge. It cannot be a foot or two away as seems to be suggested.

Dave's video didn't show that the bridge position was the same. It's impossible to tell that from the video. He even swapped the bridge to an open bridge and the swooped right to increase the cut angle during the stroke.

That doesn't contradict Dave's assertion that he doesn't pivot from the bridge. I agree with that. But I don't agree that his bridge was at the same position.

Colin

btw: It wasn't Patrick who said the bridge should be fixed, he argued that it can't be. It seems to me others propose that the bridge can be fixed and still make a different pivot.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, I think PJ argue that the hand can't be fixed......hence his bet. Hand can not be moved. He assume pivot point to be same base on his geometry....claim moving the cue with anything and pivot point is the same..not the case.

Regards,
Duc.

Duc,
I think PJ initially pointed out, that a fixed bridge point, means a fixed pivot point, and hence pivoting that way can only produce one line of shot which results in only a small range of potential successful shots.

Later, as I interpret this thread, Dave (Spidey) made a claim about utilising a different pivot though with a fixed bridge, not using the bridge as a pivot point. And that's the point of difference over which a challenge grew.

Colin

 

[RonV]

Dave, there are no hand pivots or backhand movement...The only thing I move is my hip and that of course moves the entire body, one half ball or one half tip...Now of course there are two adjustments to reach half ball hit and more but that`s it...You can shoot the entire table 90/90 or c to c half tip turn after it is more than two diamonds apart...when you have a real half ball cut and that would be two or less diamonds you correct the aim to 90 to the center of the objest ball and then swivel a half ball and you have the shot...

All these terms that I use have nothing to do with the math...The names are made up insted of using fractions I said 90% because that shot came up 90% of the time...Between the light and the edge of the ball, well there is a light and edge of ball...And for a half ball hit I used split the difference, the tip is half on and half off the ball...I like to use tangable things that you can see rather use feel using fractions which you can not see....

So that is a pretty good explanation and I hope this helps everyone understand a little better...

Best Regards, Ron V

 

[cuenut]

To be frank, I don't think he knows what's going on in terms of geometrical explanation.


Colin

I think much of this thread has been about the semantics and purist definition of "pivot point" and "bridge hand doesn't move".

I think the cue was assumed to be, and referred to as, the "line" in one post, and that only one line to the target on a cue ball through the bridge and pivot point is possible. Any change in the pivot point will result in a change in the target at a given distance if the cue is stroked through a rigid bridge fixed at a specific position on the table,. while another poster states that there are many "pivot points" through the bridge hand, even if the hand does not move.

However, if you were to look at the cue from above through a bridge that "does not move" in the slightest, there would geometrically be only 1 pivot point, that through which the center of the shaft moves through the bridge when stroked. The only way to change the pivot point in this case is to move the bridge forward or back, or left or right. In my statement above, the assumption has to be made that a bridged hand "does not move" at all, and would therefore be no different than a fixed mechanical bridge.

I could then, in the case of Dave defending himself based upon the lack of rigidity of the hand due to ligaments, muscle, skin, argue that his hand actually does move, as the skin, etc. stretches and flexes as the cue is stroked through it. This flexibility is what allows him to state correctly that the pivot point is changed, ever so slightly, and that PJ is incorrect.

If you then want to argue semantics, Dave could be determined incorrect in his assumption that his hand does not move, because it actually does. The skin, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. have to be included in the definition of "hand", and any change would result in him being incorrect. Again we are talking semantics. The pivot point, as noted by Colin earlier, and in my opinion, would not shift more than about .25cm (the amount of stretch, flex, whatever you want to call it of the skin, muscles, etc.) Both, if argued separately can be determined to lose this bet based upon this IMHO.

 

[cuenut]

Duc,
I think PJ initially pointed out, that a fixed bridge point, means a fixed pivot point, and hence pivoting that way can only produce one line of shot which results in only a small range of potential successful shots.

Later, as I interpret this thread, Dave (Spidey) made a claim about utilising a different pivot though with a fixed bridge, not using the bridge as a pivot point. And that's where point of difference over which a challenge grew.

Colin

Just saw this. That is exactly what I tried to spell out, only less verbose than my note.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The only thing I move is my hip and that of course moves the entire body, one half ball or one half tip...

Best Regards, Ron V

At around 90% of the CB (about 1 inch from center), with say a 12 inch bridge, a half ball (1.125") hip/body movement would move the tip, given about a 60 inch cue about 1/5th of 1.125" or 0.23" movement. As for half tip? I haven't got a clue how that works out in any interpretation to get the tip back to the center of the CB.

Can you explain it further Ron? Can you answer the previous question I asked about the static nature of the bridge and if the bridge is the pivot point?

Colin

 

[Koop]

Koop,

Talked to Hal for about 90 mins. Geez he's a charming bloke and fine conversationalist but I got no new knowledge from him despite repeated efforts. He gave willing answers, but all specious imho. To be frank, I don't think he knows what's going on in terms of geometrical explanation.

That said, I'd still be happy to shout you, Spidey, Ron and Hal a beer, coz we've more in common than in difference. Though Internet discussions tend to focus us all towards intricate aspects where we disagree. :grin:

Colin

Colin,

Same here buddy. You were certainly not in the group I mentioned.

Regards,
Koop

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think much of this thread has been about the semantics and purist definition of "pivot point" and "bridge hand doesn't move".

I think the cue was assumed to be, and referred to as, the "line" in one post, and that only one line to the target on a cue ball through the bridge and pivot point is possible. Any change in the pivot point will result in a change in the target at a given distance if the cue is stroked through a rigid bridge fixed at a specific position on the table,. while another poster states that there are many "pivot points" through the bridge hand, even if the hand does not move.

However, if you were to look at the cue from above through a bridge that "does not move" in the slightest, there would geometrically be only 1 pivot point, that through which the center of the shaft moves through the bridge when stroked. The only way to change the pivot point in this case is to move the bridge forward or back, or left or right. In my statement above, the assumption has to be made that a bridged hand "does not move" at all, and would therefore be no different than a fixed mechanical bridge.

I could then, in the case of Dave defending himself based upon the lack of rigidity of the hand due to ligaments, muscle, skin, argue that his hand actually does move, as the skin, etc. stretches and flexes as the cue is stroked through it. This flexibility is what allows him to state correctly that the pivot point is changed, ever so slightly, and that PJ is incorrect.

If you then want to argue semantics, Dave could be determined incorrect in his assumption that his hand does not move, because it actually does. The skin, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. have to be included in the definition of "hand", and any change would result in him being incorrect. Again we are talking semantics. The pivot point, as noted by Colin earlier, and in my opinion, would not shift more than about .25cm (the amount of stretch, flex, whatever you want to call it of the skin, muscles, etc.) Both, if argued separately can be determined to lose this bet based upon this IMHO.

OMG, clear english. That's rare, but a joy to read. Not sure that I'd come to the same conclusion, based on how the bet developed, but would like to see a peaceful settlement, or at least an acceptance that THE BET is not clearly enough defined.

Colin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Duc,
... Dave (Spidey) made a claim about utilising a different pivot though with a fixed bridge, not using the bridge as a pivot point. And that's where point of difference over which a challenge grew.

There's no interpretation needed here. Dave was very explicit in several posts that he pivots the cue at a point that's nowhere near the bridge hand. That's why I was very careful to spell that out as part of the bet.

Now he's changing his tune and trying to paint me as the "word-smith", claiming he's trying to "take the high road" when he's really trying to duck out without owning up and asking me to take the blame for his own weaseling.

Dave insisted on this bet, loudly and insultingly. As far as I'm concerned he can pay up or go away - but I know he'll do neither.

pj
chgo

Dave's Post #55:
... It seems when I pivot, the actual pivot point is near the center of the cue. With Ron's system, you pivot at the hip, not the bridge.

... Can you redo this diagram and assume a back-cue pivot? That seems closer to our techniques.

Dave's Post #57:
When I pivot, my cue doesn't rotate around my bridge--- that's incorrect.

I'm pivoting a NUMBER of feet back - nearly the length of my cue. It's off my right hip-- that's the cue pivot point. It'd be interesting to see the diagram re-figured from 50" behind the CB.

Dave's Post #59:
...the bridge isn't the pivot point. It never was--- nor is it the pivot point with CTE/Pro1. Ron said you pivot from the hip numerous times--- not sure where you got the bridge from. I actually think I pivot from the very back of the cue.

Dave's Post #72:
THERE IS NOOOOOOO PIVOT SYSTEM THAT PIVOTS FROM THE BRIDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave's Post #88:
...pinch the cue at the back of the grip and rotate around that point

Dave's Post #124:
When you body pivot, your pivot point is behind the bridge

...the bridge is the center of the circle, with the shaft being the full radius of the circle. With a body pivot, you're bridging at a point that is on the radius, between the edge and center of the circle.

 

[RonV]

PJ, All bets are off with Dave i`am taking all of the action up to $10.000...

Now again I`ll say it put your money where your mouth is or give up the battle...You have lost all the battles and you lost the war if you don`t take the BET...

RonV

 

[shankster8]

There's no interpretation needed here. Dave was very explicit in several posts that he pivots the cue at a point that's nowhere near the bridge hand. That's why I was very careful to spell that out as part of the bet.

Now he's changing his tune and trying to paint me as the "word-smith", claiming he's trying to "take the high road" when he's really trying to duck out without owning up and asking me to take the blame for his own weaseling.

Dave insisted on this bet, loudly and insultingly. As far as I'm concerned he can pay up or go away - but I know he'll do neither.

pj
chgo

Exactly, PJ, there is only one conclusion, and that is that Dave did not understand the meaning of the term "pivot point." He must admit that in the face of all the evidence you've presented in this post. To deny it will prove him insincere, at a minimum, and probably label him as a welcher. JMHO

 

[SJDinPHX]

Brain Overload, call 911 !

I'm sorry guys, I mean no disrespect to any of the poster's in this thread,
but after just scanning through it, I am in shock.
My disbelief is, you all are over 200 posts in trying to convince banger's that there is a magical "aiming system" that will somehow solve all their problems. I'm sure I could name thousands of TOP player's who, before the computer age, could fire in the game ball for the CASH.
They did not need "engineering principles" or diagrams to clutter up their minds before they pulled the trigger.
I'm talking Lassiter, Cornbread, RA, Ed Kelly, and people like that. Every table plays different. Humidity, balls, cloth, etc., all result in different mathematical equations.
If you guys have a product to sell, I must I sound like a knocker, which I guess I am. But I am truly amazed at all the Hal Houlie "wannabe's" that permeate these type threads. If you have ONE top player who subscribes to your theories, I would have to say he is STILL relying 99% on his instincts, and could care less about "pivot points" etc. (unless of course he's IN with you.) But then, what do I know about playing the game to win.

Dick

PS. There are some very intelligent guys, touting their "systems" on here. I think I speak for many when I say, we wish you would devote more of your time to improving the game we all love, and want to see taken to a higher level. "Diagrams" will not get that accomplished. Fire away.

 

[shankster8]

PJ, All bets are off with Dave i`am taking all of the action up to $10.000...

Now again I`ll say it put your money where your mouth is or give up the battle...You have lost all the battles and you lost the war if you don`t take the BET...

RonV

Ron, I am surprised! Have you read PJ's post #235? Those are direct quotes of statements made by Dave. Were his statements accurate? Yes or NO????

 

[eezbank]

I'm sorry guys, I mean no disrespect to any of the poster's in this thread,
but after just scanning through it, I am in shock.
My disbelief is, you all are over 200 posts in trying to convince banger's that there is a magical "aiming system" that will somehow solve all their problems. I'm sure I could name thousands of TOP player's who, before the computer age, could fire in the game ball for the CASH.
They did not need "engineering principles" or diagrams to clutter up their minds before they pulled the trigger.
I'm talking Lassiter, Cornbread, RA, Ed Kelly, and people like that.
If you guys have a product to sell, I must I sound like a knocker, which I guess I am. But I am truly amazed at all the Hal Houlie "wannabe's" that permeate these threads. If you have ONE top player who subscribes to your theories, I would have to say he is relying 99% on his instincts, and could care less about "pivot points" etc. (unless of course he's IN with you.) But then, what do I know about playing the game to win.

Dick

PS. There are some very intelligent guys, touting their "systems" on here. I wish you would devote more of your time to improving the game we all love, and want to see taken to a better level.

name one? go to stan shuffets web site you will find more than one. here is a quote from the site by stevie moore..

"I learned the PRO ONE aiming system from Stan Shuffett about 1 year ago. I successfully used PRO ONE in the 2008 Derby City Classic 9-Ball division getting a top 10 finish. I recently used the system with great results at 2 Seminole Florida Pro Tour events. . "

Stevie Moore

the web address is justcueit.com