Ron V aiming system video and diagrams
- Thread starter cleary
- Start date
If your bridge is in the same place and your cue ball is in the same place but you don't rotate the cue as much then you don't hit centerball. Centerball from the fixed bridge's perspective doesn't change - that's what's important.
Your line of vision (I guess that's what you mean by "line of aim") doesn't determine where your stick is pointed for a centerball shot - the bridge and the cue ball do that.
pj
chgo
I need to think about this some more, but I wonder if the "visual perception" of center ball might be changing with the body pivot. If you pivot your line of vision with the cue, then it is easier to perceive and establish an exact center-ball hit. However, if you do a back-hand pivot from a line of vision not through the center of the cue ball (e.g., the 90-90 line), you might "visually perceive" a center-ball hit, but you might actually be getting an off-center hit (i.e., your eyes are deceiving you). What do you think?Patrick Johnson said:
I understand your points and I will think about them some more. Obviously, Spidey is creating two separate lines of aim in his video (because the balls are going in different directions), and he thinks he has established center-ball with both techniques. I'm just trying to find a reasonable explanation for this.
Regards,
Dave
I think the only problem here is pinning down each party's understanding of what is a "fixed bridge. PJ wants a rigid bridge, that doesn't move. And he wins the bet using that type of bridge, because if the rigid bridge doesn't move laterally during the hip pivot, the cue only rises in the V", resulting in BHE only. Dave, however, wants a soft bridge that can deform during the hip pivot, and add BHE and FHE, thus translating the pivot point.
Patrick Johnson said:
So based on your own writings, how can you say you play by feel?
I would love to see a webcam of these explanations. Dave went out on a limb and, whether you agree or not, put himself out there for all to see and judge. How's about you do the same. At least then we can compare apples to apples.
APA7 said:That iz U, Officer Johnson (not a PHD Johnson) :sorry:
Brian
Dang, Brian! You made an unequivocal, accusatory statement here and have been called on it. See post #415, where PJ asks you to bet on the accuracy of your statement. Were you just BS'ing the forum here, like PJ's challenge seems to imply.
Last edited:
An attempt at some appeasement.
The animations are proved to be incorrect. See my above images. Cleary used a line for the potting shot (presumably a hip pivot) that passed well below the center of the CB. That is the line his theoretical CB travelled. It won't travel that line, if hit there in real play due to squirt. The animation proves nothing.
I wouldn't be in a rush to get PhD mathematicians in to back your cause either coz I can almost guarantee you that those here who spend a lot of time on pool physics such as Bob Jewett, JAL, Mike Page, Dr. Dave and myself all actually think PJ is basically correct. None of us are in a rush to join what is perceived as perhaps a bashing squad on these systems, nor do we necessarily agree with the way PJ has dealt with this situation.
But in the end, we seek the truth and I don't want the truth to be decided by mob rule or intimidation. I like you Dave but I don't agree with the explanations you propose. And I do not believe there is any proof that makes PJ in debt to you.
Sorry to bring Bob, Jal, Mike and Dr. Dave into this. I hope each of you might respond someway.
These guys, and PJ, I trust as insightful posters and sometimes we disagree amongst ourselves. We're not some team who intend to gang up on aiming system proponents. In fact, I think several among the group have made huge contributions on systematization in this sport. We also generally agree that many aiming systems are not fully systematized and much of our enthusiasm, and sometimes angst, is with the resistance we meet in attempting to better systematize these aiming systems, so that they can be better explained and made more readily available and explainable.
I'm sorry you're a bit on tilt Dave, but I just don't think you can claim that PJ is welching on a bet here, so I wanted to speak up. I really wish the bet would disappear or to be made a token victory. The hard thing about it is how it is decided. A forum member vote might declare you the winner, but a panel of physicists, I suspect, would declare PJ the winner. That said, I don't even think the original bet terms are clearly defined. I could manipulate them with a change in bridge length and swooping and swerve.
Anyway, I hope disagreements, or different conceptions of how things work don't lead to increased aggravation.
Best regards,
Colin
Dave,SpiderWebComm said:
The animations are proved to be incorrect. See my above images. Cleary used a line for the potting shot (presumably a hip pivot) that passed well below the center of the CB. That is the line his theoretical CB travelled. It won't travel that line, if hit there in real play due to squirt. The animation proves nothing.
I wouldn't be in a rush to get PhD mathematicians in to back your cause either coz I can almost guarantee you that those here who spend a lot of time on pool physics such as Bob Jewett, JAL, Mike Page, Dr. Dave and myself all actually think PJ is basically correct. None of us are in a rush to join what is perceived as perhaps a bashing squad on these systems, nor do we necessarily agree with the way PJ has dealt with this situation.
But in the end, we seek the truth and I don't want the truth to be decided by mob rule or intimidation. I like you Dave but I don't agree with the explanations you propose. And I do not believe there is any proof that makes PJ in debt to you.
Sorry to bring Bob, Jal, Mike and Dr. Dave into this. I hope each of you might respond someway.
These guys, and PJ, I trust as insightful posters and sometimes we disagree amongst ourselves. We're not some team who intend to gang up on aiming system proponents. In fact, I think several among the group have made huge contributions on systematization in this sport. We also generally agree that many aiming systems are not fully systematized and much of our enthusiasm, and sometimes angst, is with the resistance we meet in attempting to better systematize these aiming systems, so that they can be better explained and made more readily available and explainable.
I'm sorry you're a bit on tilt Dave, but I just don't think you can claim that PJ is welching on a bet here, so I wanted to speak up. I really wish the bet would disappear or to be made a token victory. The hard thing about it is how it is decided. A forum member vote might declare you the winner, but a panel of physicists, I suspect, would declare PJ the winner. That said, I don't even think the original bet terms are clearly defined. I could manipulate them with a change in bridge length and swooping and swerve.
Anyway, I hope disagreements, or different conceptions of how things work don't lead to increased aggravation.
Best regards,
Colin
Koop said:
Do you think that because I can describe what I visualize that it can't be done by feel? I don't think you have a very clear idea of what "by feel" means.
What do you think you'd see in a video that would show how I aim? I'd shoot a couple of balls in and say the same things I wrote above? How does that show how I do it?
This is the problem with Dave's video: it doesn't "show" anything; it's just him shooting a couple of shots and telling us what he believes he's doing. I could shoot a couple of balls in a completely different way and tell you that I'm doing it the same way and you'd never know the difference.
pj
chgo
shankster8 said:
Gee, ya think?
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Hey pj,
Speaking of time capsules.
Patrick Johnson View profile
More options Jul 11 2000, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <REMOV...@21stCentury.net>
Date: 2000/07/11
Subject: Re: Off-topic, but 'cause I like you guys...
You gotta be kiddin' me. Insurance? Insurance?
You guys could bring a good cop gone bad right out of retirement.
Move along now. Show's over.
Officer Pat (Ret.)
Chicago
Cleary,cleary said:
You diagrammed that the bridge is the pivot point. Then you created an animation that was incorrect, and then promised to make one that was reliable and now refuse to do that.
And now you blame critics, I assume myself to be one, of not being open minded, though you hardly know me / us or our experience.
I reckon I have used this system and similar systems on many many more shots than you have. I know from those exoeriences that the bridge pivot needs to shift in order to create new lines of aim. I know it from practice and I know it because the geometry is ironclad.
If you could prove otherwise then I doubt you'd run away. It's a shame because you have skills and energy that could help this game, but personally, I think it is yourself that is closed minded.
Colin
I think your top drawing shows pivoting at the hip, and you bottom drawing shows moving your back hand. What makes it interesting is you clearly have to move your back hand in the bottom drawing to hit the ball, however on the top drawing you pivot from the hip,bridge hand stays still, ball goes in pocket, end of story WOW!!!!Colin Colenso said:
Koop said:
Yeah, that may be why "Brian" thought he was onto something. Guess you two have the same ideas about what's fun and exciting on the internet.
pj
chgo
What i would like to see PJ is somebody start an aiming system thread and we work to prove it works or doesn't work, no arguements. You continuesly argue about feel,pivot points, and post bad drawings and refuse to try them out on a pool table. By doing this it hi-jacks the thread and I lose the oppertunity to gain valuable free info. If a scientist did a drawing,did the experiment off the drawing and it didn't work, he would redo his drawing, but you refused to do the experiment. WHY!!!!
actually I think he is very smart
Colin,
Actually I think Cleary is very smart to simply back out of this thread. he started a nice thread that might have ran to 20-30 replies at most without the usual BS being started. Once the BS started almost all posters are more wrapped up in the BS than what Cleary was trying to present to begin with. Anything he tries to say will be lost in the over 400 posts that don't amount to anything but noise.
Not getting into right, wrong, or what I think about pivot points because it isn't relevant to Cleary deciding to step away from a mess he didn't make. I plan to send him contact information so we can have rational discussion of the system and I can see his future video's. I suggest that you do the same.
Hu
Colin,
Actually I think Cleary is very smart to simply back out of this thread. he started a nice thread that might have ran to 20-30 replies at most without the usual BS being started. Once the BS started almost all posters are more wrapped up in the BS than what Cleary was trying to present to begin with. Anything he tries to say will be lost in the over 400 posts that don't amount to anything but noise.
Not getting into right, wrong, or what I think about pivot points because it isn't relevant to Cleary deciding to step away from a mess he didn't make. I plan to send him contact information so we can have rational discussion of the system and I can see his future video's. I suggest that you do the same.
Hu
Colin Colenso said: