Ron V aiming system video and diagrams

[Cuemaster98]

Wow...didn't even know that what I wrote had any physic in it?

Is it me or are you putting words into my mouth?? where I did I say a cue can pivot at multiple points at the same time? LOL..this is funny.

I'm saying PJ bet is base on an fixed hand bridge (Human)..not mechanical...so when you have two different action such as Moving your Back Hand vs Moving your hip...you will have two different shots. If you believe that employing both of these techniques (Ron vs BH) will produce the same line or shot....than you have to try it for yourself to find out it not.

Just the fact that the player is moving his body..and arm connect to the bridge hand does change the cue pivot point. Like I say again..the human bridge is not mechanical. So it will have more than one pivot point. When you use BH to move the cue...you will notice that the shaft contact the bridge hand (Close or Open Bridge) at one point. As soon as you shift your body, you will notice a change in the pivot point even thought it resting on the same fixed bridge hand and bridge (Closed or open...lots of room for cue to rotate)

Colin, please try this and tell me how you going to use physic to explain to us how 2 different human action will produce the same result. You are using physic, geometry...(exact system) to explain something that is not. Unless you're a robot...it's two different shot...contrary to PJ bet.

He asked dave (human) to prove to him how these two actions are different. Dave outline the shot and direction...so you just have to try and tell us if it true. This bet is not about proving why it works...it's about whether Dave can do it or not based on Post #133 outline by PJ. So according to this bet...if dave is able to show that there is a difference..shooting from that fixed hand bridge...PJ will lose the bet. It's that simple.

You guys still havn't try this I guessing....so I thinking you're the one that living in another world...possibly..I guessing...a world where everything is perfect and exact. PJ...must be learning now that systems are exact and perfect...what happen to feel?

Why not, Gustav Coriolis energy is still probably floating around the universe.....maybe one day you can ask him. I believe that energy and matter can not be destroy or created. Since we human are basically energy...we'll be around for a long time. You never know what we'll discover in the future...maybe we can call the dead!!

It's funny how the more we learn....we come to realize that we know nothing!!! LOL.

This has been fun guys....I really hope you guys figure this one out on your own...being so smart and all. Please move on to the next lesson and maybe we'll all be able to learn something new.

Regards,
Duc.

Sorry Duc,
but your physics comes from a different dimension to mine. The world where cues can pivot at multiple points at the same time I have not visited. I guess my BSc won't get me a visa to travel there either.

No wonder you don't trust our version of physics. I'd inform Gustav Coriolis that he's wasting time on his masse theory, which he developed without actually playing any masses, but unfortunately he died a couple of hundred years ago.

Perhaps you could, from the realm where time and space differ to ours, let him know that there are new lines that can bend at multiple points such that he can fine tune his theories.

I'm sorry, it's not my nature to be derogatory, but your post was directed at me and I don't know any other way to respond at this long hour of the night. I do hope you'll re-read the thread and come up with a reply that doesn't just repeat what has already been stated and refuted.

I'm off to bed now. I'm sure you're a nice guy Duc, just trying to work this out, as are most here. I wish you good luck and hope you don't abuse me too vigorously for my arrogance:smile:

Colin

 

[emccune]

I had detractors?

pj
chgo

Haha. More like friendly rivals? Wasn't it Sincerely Sam who coined the Officer Pat stuff? Or was it MM?

Ed

 

[SJDinPHX]

I just can't wait !!!

To all you young, computer savvy physics engineer's, this will be my last post re; "aiming systems". You deserve to be left alone to debate your differences. (i.e., pivot point, swerve,squirt, etc.) Obviously, one of you has figured out the "Holy Grail" of pool. I shall wait to see who is the "last man standing" and may subscribe to his theory. NOT !!!

Dick

 

[CueAndMe]

If you move your head while you are pivoting the cue, won't you get a different perspective on where the tip is relative to the ball than if you didn't move your head? Regards,
Dave

One thing to consider is that there has to be a reason to move the head in the first place. The only reason here is to GET to center ball. So, at which center ball are you supposed to stop? From a wider, more flexible stance, you can move the head to a more distant center ball than from a narrow, rigid stance. If a system accounted for this changing perception of center ball, it would have to provide limits for body movement, because sight couldn't be relied upon to stop your shifting.

 

[dr_dave]

the one true center-ball

One thing to consider is that there has to be a reason to move the head in the first place. The only reason here is to GET to center ball. So, at which center ball are you supposed to stop? From a wider, more flexible stance, you can move the head to a more distant center ball than from a narrow, rigid stance. If a system accounted for this changing perception of center ball, it would have to provide limits for body movement, because sight couldn't be relied upon to stop your shifting.

With a fixed bridge point, there is only one true center-ball line of aim, where the centerline of the cue points straight through the center of the cue ball. Starting from a non-center-ball alignment (e.g., the 90-90 line), the head must be moved as the cue is pivoted so the line of vision is along the cue pointing straight at the center of the cue ball. I think only then can true center-ball alignment be visualized and achieved accurately. It is not clear to me if this is what the proponents of CTE and other pivot methods intend; but clearly, it is important where the line of vision is when the cue is pivoted.

Regards,
Dave

 

[CueAndMe]

With a fixed bridge point, there is only one true center-ball line of aim, where the centerline of the cue points straight through the center of the cue ball. Starting from a non-center-ball alignment (e.g., the 90-90 line), the head must be moved as the cue is pivoted so the line of vision is along the cue pointing straight at the center of the cue ball. I think only then can true center-ball alignment be visualized and achieved accurately. It is not clear to me if this is what the proponents of CTE and other pivot methods intend; but clearly, it is important where the line of vision is when the cue is pivoted.

Regards,
Dave

I completely agree. You had brought up the possibility of the changing visual having an effect on the perceived center cue ball. I was just showing, if the bridge could move, that the shifting perspective couldn't be relied upon.

 

[cookie man]

Lots of people, obviously.

Here's a question for you: as long as they work why don't the people who use them want others to learn why? For that matter, why don't they want to know themselves? Why all the complaining when somebody starts asking questions?

pj
chgo

The point is it doesn't matter why, just that they work. If we stopped exploring the why and consentrated on the how we would learn something. Why? sidetracks all the aiming threads. I am just asking to let the HOW-TO lessons continue.

 

[ShootingArts]

great post!!!

The point is it doesn't matter why, just that they work. If we stopped exploring the why and consentrated on the how we would learn something. Why? sidetracks all the aiming threads. I am just asking to let the HOW-TO lessons continue.

I agree. I wish all the people that want to argue about why things work would start a separate thread instead of derailing the "how things work" threads. I think many of us would first like to know how things work then maybe we could figure out the why for ourselves. If we couldn't and we still knew it worked many of us wouldn't care why. There are a few shots that I shoot that make people say WOW when in reality they are an automatic shot. I don't know why they are so easy, I just know when I see the cue ball and object ball in that relationship the shot looks tough but is about 90% or better. I have never wasted days trying to figure out why the shot goes so easily. If a simple aiming technique pockets balls I don't have to beat my brains out wondering why.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Why? sidetracks all the aiming threads. I am just asking to let the HOW-TO lessons continue.

You're not going to get anywhere with this "stay out of 'our' threads" attitude. It's only natural that people want to explore all aspects of a topic when it comes up on a public discussion forum. Some people want to talk about how to do it, others want to talk about why that works. How can you separate the two? Why should you? What do you have against learning both?

These aren't "your" systems. Stop being so possessive and defensive and let all sides of the discussion go forward in peace - then we all might learn something new.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

look for yourself

You're not going to get anywhere with this "stay out of 'our' threads" attitude. It's only natural that people want to explore all aspects of a topic when it comes up on a public discussion forum. Some people want to talk about how to do it, others want to talk about why that works. How can you separate the two? Why should you? What do you have against learning both?

These aren't "your" systems. Stop being so possessive and defensive and let all sides of the discussion go forward in peace - then we all might learn something new.

pj
chgo

PJ,

There is no better proof than this thread that the two, how and why, should be separated. Nearly five hundred posts and we still don't know why the system works. We don't even know how it works which I think we would have found out long ago without the thread getting derailed into the "why". The "why" was not the subject of the thread, how was. Derailing every thread about an aiming system into useless clutter is a loss to all that are interested in aiming systems. learn the "how" and the "why" should follow if you are even half as intelligent as you and some others think you are. However when we never learn even the "how" after almost five hundred posts we still have nothing to even work with, a basis for study.

I know more about the zone than the vast majority of pool players simply because I have participated in activities that are much easier to get into the zone in than pool is. No way in hell would I waste my time explaining it to folks that want to understand the "why" before they understand the "how".

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I know more about the zone than the vast majority of pool players simply because I have participated in activities that are much easier to get into the zone in than pool is. No way in hell would I waste my time explaining it to folks that want to understand the "why" before they understand the "how".

Hu

So discussion isn't stopped by those who ask why, but by those like you who refuse to discuss it amicably.

Edit: That was a little unfair and one-sided. There are people on both "sides" who are argumentative.

I don't think it works to separate such closely related discussions into separate threads, but I'll try to be careful not to disrupt the "how to" part of discussions if others will do the same for the "how it works" part.

Live and let live - it's a two-way street.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

The whole discussion did stop, you can't even realize that, and accept that without proof of why!!!

 

[JoeyA]

The point is it doesn't matter why, just that they work. If we stopped exploring the why and consentrated on the how we would learn something. Why? sidetracks all the aiming threads. I am just asking to let the HOW-TO lessons continue.

You bring up a couple of good points. Your post reminds me of the old saying, "It depends upon whose ox is getting gored".

There are more than one ox in this forum and each ox likes their way.

Me, I kind of like observing and listening to everyone's way and then deciding for myself which way is going to be my way.

When these discussions start going downhill is when one party thinks the other party is wrong, stupid, arrogant, or condescending and this gets expressed in a non civil manner. I'm not talking just about mean-spirited name calling but also the manner in which some of the discussions are perceived.

No one likes getting attacked and verbally abused and so tempers will flare when that occurs and you can't blame anyone from being human and responding with attacks of their own, whether they are deserved or not.

If everyone paid more attention to the "tone" of their responses, I think more discussion from all parties would be tolerated better by people with different perspectives.

One day soon I will be starting a thread about aiming systems and how they work and how they help some people become better players.

For now, just for discussion's sake, if you are walking down the sidewalk and decide to turn around and go back in the direction you came from (pivot), if you pivot, do you pivot on your (heel/toe/foot) or do you pivot on the sidewalk? :thumbup:

JoeyA

 

[ShootingArts]

do you have a mirror?

So discussion isn't stopped by those who ask why, but by those like you who refuse to discuss it amicably.

pj
chgo

PJ,

Do you own a mirror? You are one of the most abrasive posters on the forum yet over and over you are the first to label other's posts hostile. You have done this repeatedly to me and to others. People that might have valuable input don't waste their time in these BS threads for the most part.

If I wade back through all of these posts, less than a dozen have content that furthered my understanding of the system. As I have said, there is no better proof of my statement that trying to delve into the why while not bothering to understand the how is a waste.

I wouldn't waste time trying to explain to you why a wheel rolled if you refused to first understand that it rolled.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ,

Do you own a mirror? You are one of the most abrasive posters on the forum yet over and over you are the first to label other's posts hostile. You have done this repeatedly to me and to others. People that might have valuable input don't waste their time in these BS threads for the most part.

If I wade back through all of these posts, less than a dozen have content that furthered my understanding of the system. As I have said, there is no better proof of my statement that trying to delve into the why while not bothering to understand the how is a waste.

I wouldn't waste time trying to explain to you why a wheel rolled if you refused to first understand that it rolled.

Hu

I was adding an edit to my post while you were sending this one.

I wouldn't waste time trying to explain to you why a wheel rolled if you refused to first understand that it rolled.

But that's still nonsense. There's no magic to the order of these things and nobody has "refused to understand" anything.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

PJ,

There is no better proof than this thread that the two, how and why, should be separated. Nearly five hundred posts and we still don't know why the system works. We don't even know how it works which I think we would have found out long ago without the thread getting derailed into the "why". The "why" was not the subject of the thread, how was. Derailing every thread about an aiming system into useless clutter is a loss to all that are interested in aiming systems. learn the "how" and the "why" should follow if you are even half as intelligent as you and some others think you are. However when we never learn even the "how" after almost five hundred posts we still have nothing to even work with, a basis for study.

I know more about the zone than the vast majority of pool players simply because I have participated in activities that are much easier to get into the zone in than pool is. No way in hell would I waste my time explaining it to folks that want to understand the "why" before they understand the "how".

Hu

Ok Hu, I have a How To on a great new system for you.

Align the bridge to point through center CB. Aim that at the OB contact point, the farthest part of the OB from the pocket.

As the angle increases shift the bridge one eighth tip per 10 degrees and chin shift it to CB center alignment. Doesn't matter what the pivot point is, nor where the chin is, it's all self correcting. Trust me, it works and I never use any feel.

Now hopefully no one will be rude enough to ask me why this works.

This bit of satire is meant to display that many 'how to's' posted are not complete, and to make sense of such systems it is crucial to investigate the hows and whys of its application.

In the normal world of systems, experts are expected to provide answers to these questions. Why this forum should not expect standard scientific examination is beyond me.

This thread has provided the why's of two or more different camps of thought. You can now go out an pivot from the hip without shifting the bridge and have a ball with the whys you've accepted.

Colin

 

[ShootingArts]

I made my living in R&D

Colin,

Unlike most on here I have made my living hands on in R&D and I have been a vice president of a research corporation so I am well aware of how research works, both the practical and theoretical side. Applied research involves testing. PJ has stated over and over that he is unwilling to test. Waste of time trying to discuss why something works when you don't know if it works or not.

A friend held over eighty patents. One of them was on what I would have called a discovery, not an invention. he was a physicist and president of the company I was VP of however I was never quite convinced that he fully understood why the process worked. In thirty years he never had but one other person claim to understand the math start to finish and that man was the president of another company with a tremendous ego. I listened to their conversation and remain unconvinced that the man simply didn't cover his ego. I never asked Mr. Hagan to explain SCP to me simply because we would have had to take many a side trail and probably spend days on the explanation. No idea if I could have connected all the dots A to Z when we were finished anyway. Never-the-less, I can put the equipment together to create this process and make it work without consulting anyone else. In fact I have. It doesn't matter why it works. I know it works and how to make it work.

Likewise, how many know how the computer and internet connection they are sitting in front of works? How many levels does a single packet of information go through to travel the internet? Theoretical levels, actual levels? Explain how logic gates actually work these days. How many can explain electricity down to the most basic levels? However, with just a bit of training most of us can be competent working on a computer and maneuver on the internet with ease.

How and why are separate areas. If we keep them separate we might be able to learn something. Those that insist on why without understanding how are turning every thread on aiming into a wasteland. What is more, when someone posts a thread starter as a "how to" and a few people always turn it into a "why" thread they are derailing the thread into an off topic area where the thread bogs down and never returns to "how to". Do you think that is fair to the original poster? You didn't like it when I used one word missing from one of your posts to illustrate how easy it is to pick apart a post. How would you feel if someone derailed every thread you started?

Hu

Ok Hu, I have a How To on a great new system for you.

Align the bridge to point through center CB. Aim that at the OB contact point, the farthest part of the OB from the pocket.

As the angle increases shift the bridge one eight tip per 10 degrees and chin shift it to CB center alignment. Doesn't matter what the pivot point is, nor where the chin is, it's all self correcting. Trust me, it works and I never use any feel.

Now hopefully no one will be rude enough to ask me why this works.

This bit of satire is meant to display that many 'how to's' posted are not complete, and to make sense of such systems it is crucial to investigate the hows and whys of its application.

In the normal world of systems, experts are expected to provide answers to these questions. Why this forum should not expect standard scientific examination is beyond me.

This thread has provided the why's of two or more different camps of thought. You can now go out an pivot from the hip without shifting the bridge and have a ball with the whys you've accepted.

Colin

 

[unknownpro]

How many of you CTE users were looking at the object ball contact point before you used this system? Very seldom can your tip ever be aimed at the OB contact point and you make the shot correctly with a good stroke. It takes either a bad stroke or a mastery of "no look" technique to play well focusing on the contact point. If you were focusing on the OB contact point before, you should consider the fact that you did not know how to play pool in the first place. So anything different is likely to be an improvement that may let you stroke better. This, imo, is the main reason why this system seems to help players.

I know that sounds a little harsh, but I believe it to be the truth. You can play champion speed looking at contact points as long as you are "in the zone" and unconsious, I beat many a champion that way. But Efren has his game with him nearly all the time, imo, mainly because he knows what he is supposed to be looking at and is aiming his tip there to that spot, not some other spot.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

How many of you CTE users were looking at the object ball contact point before you used this system? Very seldom can your tip ever be aimed at the OB contact point and you make the shot correctly with a good stroke. It takes either a bad stroke or a mastery of "no look" technique to play well focusing on the contact point. If you were focusing on the OB contact point before, you should consider the fact that you did not know how to play pool in the first place. So anything different is likely to be an improvement that may let you stroke better. This, imo, is the main reason why this system seems to help players.

I know that sounds a little harsh, but I believe it to be the truth. You can play champion speed looking at contact points as long as you are "in the zone" and unconsious, I beat many a champion that way. But Efren has his game with him nearly all the time, imo, mainly because he knows what he is supposed to be looking at and is aiming his tip there to that spot, not some other spot.

Unknownpro, who are you? What's your name? It's cool to be harsh, but everyone knows everyone here and you're incognito. Stand by your comments with your name, is all I ask.

With all due respect, since you're a tour player... next time you're at an event, pull Bustamante aside and discuss CTE. You might learn something.

I want to take you more seriously, but with a Ron Paul avatar, it's REAAALLY tough. I could ignore the Ron Paul manifesto at least if I knew who you were.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

Unlike most on here I have made my living hands on in R&D and I have been a vice president of a research corporation so I am well aware of how research works, both the practical and theoretical side. Applied research involves testing. PJ has stated over and over that he is unwilling to test. Waste of time trying to discuss why something works when you don't know if it works or not.

A friend held over eighty patents. One of them was on what I would have called a discovery, not an invention. he was a physicist and president of the company I was VP of however I was never quite convinced that he fully understood why the process worked. In thirty years he never had but one other person claim to understand the math start to finish and that man was the president of another company with a tremendous ego. I listened to their conversation and remain unconvinced that the man simply didn't cover his ego. I never asked Mr. Hagan to explain SCP to me simply because we would have had to take many a side trail and probably spend days on the explanation. No idea if I could have connected all the dots A to Z when we were finished anyway. Never-the-less, I can put the equipment together to create this process and make it work without consulting anyone else. In fact I have. It doesn't matter why it works. I know it works and how to make it work.

Likewise, how many know how the computer and internet connection they are sitting in front of works? How many levels does a single packet of information go through to travel the internet? Theoretical levels, actual levels? Explain how logic gates actually work these days. How many can explain electricity down to the most basic levels? However, with just a bit of training most of us can be competent working on a computer and maneuver on the internet with ease.

How and why are separate areas. If we keep them separate we might be able to learn something. Those that insist on why without understanding how are turning every thread on aiming into a wasteland. What is more, when someone posts a thread starter as a "how to" and a few people always turn it into a "why" thread they are derailing the thread into an off topic area where the thread bogs down and never returns to "how to". Do you think that is fair to the original poster? You didn't like it when I used one word missing from one of your posts to illustrate how easy it is to pick apart a post. How would you feel if someone derailed every thread you started?

Hu

Ok Hu,
I get your point. If the instructions work, then it doesn't really matter why if one only needs to use the information for practical application.

I think most of the whys here, are being asked because the how's are not fully explained.

I have tested the system and I sure cannot make both a 5 degree and an 15 degree cut from 3 feet away following the directions provided. My a static bridge point the CB line is exactly the same for me in practice as it would appear to be in theory.

Whether I shift (pivot) from the hip, I cannot change the nature of the pivot. I cannot change the angle without changing the initial bridge position or the distance between CB and OB.

In most of these Houlian type systems the how is not sufficiently explained to allow execution. The reason for getting into the whys is because we might ourselves begin to make some ground on the hows.

Some of the best potters in the world don't know how they aim. Some of them will give their simplistic insights. Those insights are often theoretically and practically impossible. Is it better to investigate such recommendations or to just accept them, without critique and let beginners waste weeks, months or years before realizing it doesn't work as described?

If it wasn't for the curious questioners, we'd be having to read threads on cue twisting and finger crossing every day. The questioners have moved the knowledge of the sport forward.

Colin