Ron V aiming system video and diagrams

that is all I was suggesting

PJ,

Your edit covers exactly what I am suggesting. In research we break something down into the smallest units possible. Separating how and why and then separating each one into smaller and smaller pieces could lead to understanding. The more things we clump together the less likely we are to understand the whole.

Please try to let a "how to" thread run it's course. Then read over the entire thread and if the why isn't apparent, address the why in a separate thread. This may be more productive for all of us.

Hu



Patrick Johnson said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Colin Colenso said:
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
Click to expand...

Colin:

I know what you're doing wrong without even seeing you. Hopefully if I make it to DCC, I'm going to get you shit-faced... and then I'm going to show you.... and then you're going to wake up the next afternoon thinking, "WTF did he say again?":thumbup:

Taking time off of this thread has helped my blood pressure tremendously. The discussion in this thread cannot be easily proven on a drafting board with a ruler and compass. The bridge is not an infinitely small point.

It would be nice if all parties who were heated (including me), interested or entertained in this thread would meet at DCC in the AZB room for a friendly little demonstration. IN-PERSON discussions are the nuts, IMO. Nothing like having a table and cue available with people staring at you from a foot away, know what I mean? I'm not worried about the bet anymore, this is totally friendly--- for everyone's education and enlightenment.... fun time, no? I'll bring my laptop and we'll stream it to AZB just so everyone who couldn't make it could sweat the fun-loving, brotherly discussion.

I love you guys.

Cheers, mate!
 
Last edited:
wrong questions

Colin,

We barely got started on the "how" before the thread was derailed. The OP said there was more to come and perhaps could have added detail to further explain how things worked. However those that write best have an advantage on the internet, it doesn't really matter if they are right or wrong or just lacking in adequate information so the OP left a losing battle.

I haven't tested enough to say for certain but I doubt I can make the system work with the information available in this thread either. However we have choked off the flow of additional information. As PJ and I now seem to agree, lets get the how out in the how threads and once we have taken the how as far as possible then ask the why separately. Working with partial information is like banging our heads against a brick wall. I have pretty strong proof that pivot systems in general can work. I still don't have adequate information as to how any of them work to decide their value for myself. We need a full framework on the table before we can make a good faith effort to analyze it.

Hu

PS: I also agree that the threads started to dig into the "why" should be allowed to dig as long as they like without folks saying it doesn't matter. For the purpose of that thread it does matter and that is sufficient.



Colin Colenso said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know how to test this, but I'll let you prove me wrong.

Just for you, I just went to my table and did a simple test that proves there's no difference in pivoting with or without your hips. But I didn't just try to make shots, which is what you seem to want me to do - I actually tested it.

It was very simple and didn't require any special equipment - I'll tell you how I did it as soon as you do the same thing and tell me how you did it - to show that you really know how to test something and not just "try it out".

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't think you know how to test this, but I'll let you prove me wrong.

Just for you, I just went to my table and did a simple test that proves there's no difference in pivoting with or without your hips. But I didn't just try to make shots, which is what you seem to want me to do - I actually tested it.

It was very simple and didn't require any special equipment - I'll tell you how I did it as soon as you do the same thing and tell me how you did it - to show that you really know how to test something and not just "try it out".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Whew... thank God you didn't meet-up when I was begging to. I would've lost everything. In all seriousness, let's all try to meet up at DCC as friends, have a beer in the AZ room, and we'll work this out.. and report back? I might even be able to stream it. What do you say?

Totally as friends. If it makes a difference, "I'm sorry" for dogging you publicly. It'd be nice if you apologized for posting my PM--- although I'm not sure you're the type.

Bet aside, I'm just reaaaaaally ticking to meet up and work it out in person--as an AZB group. To show what kind of guy I am, I'll buy the beer. Well, maybe not for Colin. Between living in Asia and Australia, there's no telling how much the man can drink.... could be expensive.

What do you say?

Dave

Just thought of something... how about the loser buys the beer for the group? JUST in case I know something.
 
Last edited:
ShootingArts said:
PJ,

Your edit covers exactly what I am suggesting. In research we break something down into the smallest units possible. Separating how and why and then separating each one into smaller and smaller pieces could lead to understanding. The more things we clump together the less likely we are to understand the whole.

Please try to let a "how to" thread run it's course. Then read over the entire thread and if the why isn't apparent, address the why in a separate thread. This may be more productive for all of us.

Hu
Click to expand...

You seem to forget, Hu, that it was the "why" questions that actually finally revealed the detailed "how" instructions. Asking why made the system's users get specific about it and in the process clarified the instructions - and revealed that there are differences between the way RonV says to do it and the way some here say to do it, and some confusion about what they're really trying to say.

You also seem to forget that there have been "why" threads started that just as quickly descended into arguments. Why aren't you complaining about that?

I didn't say I'd stay out of "how-to" threads - I think both discussions should take place together so each can reveal things about the other. I said I'd try not to be disruptive and asked that others do the same.

pj
chgo
 
ShootingArts said:
Colin,

We barely got started on the "how" before the thread was derailed. The OP said there was more to come and perhaps could have added detail to further explain how things worked. However those that write best have an advantage on the internet, it doesn't really matter if they are right or wrong or just lacking in adequate information so the OP left a losing battle.

I haven't tested enough to say for certain but I doubt I can make the system work with the information available in this thread either. However we have choked off the flow of additional information. As PJ and I now seem to agree, lets get the how out in the how threads and once we have taken the how as far as possible then ask the why separately. Working with partial information is like banging our heads against a brick wall. I have pretty strong proof that pivot systems in general can work. I still don't have adequate information as to how any of them work to decide their value for myself. We need a full framework on the table before we can make a good faith effort to analyze it.

Hu

PS: I also agree that the threads started to dig into the "why" should be allowed to dig as long as they like without folks saying it doesn't matter. For the purpose of that thread it does matter and that is sufficient.
Click to expand...

great posts Hu. nice to see someone that gets it. you can't make conclusions if you don't have all the information. it's always the same crowd that goes into attack mode when they see an alternative aiming system. in the process they are the ones that look like fools for not waiting for the adjustments and the rest of the information. the adjustments for this system were promised on the first page of this thread.

thanks to ronv for sharing your work. great stuff :smile:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't think you know how to test this, but I'll let you prove me wrong.

Just for you, I just went to my table and did a simple test that proves there's no difference in pivoting with or without your hips. But I didn't just try to make shots, which is what you seem to want me to do - I actually tested it.

It was very simple and didn't require any special equipment - I'll tell you how I did it as soon as you do the same thing and tell me how you did it - to show that you really know how to test something and not just "try it out".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

PJ and CC,

I too have gone through the drill as described in the 90 - 90 or CTE etc., and it conforms to PJ's graphic diagram (I did that earlier on ACAD) - what works for that given cut at 2 feet misses at 4 feet etc.

I can cheat by contorting my thumb and forefinger of my bridge to the left or right (away from the center of the CB), after I move my hip, to where I know the cue must travel to hit the CB to make the OB go to the pocket at different distances - I know from ghost ball and fractional schooling.

That one is able to do this contortion makes me leery of watching one prove that the 90 - 90 works for all cut angles and all distances.
 
let's all try to meet up at DCC as friends, have a beer in the AZ room, and we'll work this out...
Click to expand...

If I get to DCC I'd enjoy having a beer with you and even doing a little friendly gambling at the table, but I probably won't be very interested in rehashing any of this because I doubt we'd make any progress - we just don't speak the same language about it.

I think the "language barrier" coupled with being on our good behavior would hamper us too much to really make any progress. We'd just end up going away smiling and saying "to each his own". I hear too much of that here already - it's like kissing my sister.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
If I get to DCC I'd enjoy having a beer with you and even doing a little friendly gambling at the table, but I probably won't be very interested in rehashing any of this because I doubt we'd make any progress - we just don't speak the same language about it.

I think the "language barrier" coupled with being on our good behavior would hamper us too much to really make any progress. We'd just end up going away smiling and saying "to each his own". I hear too much of that here already - it's like kissing my sister.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Is your sister hot? I was just thinking about bringing some string, some tape, a protractor, paper, a marker and a laser pointer. That stuff is right up your alley, I'm sure. The language you speak is geometry. That's my language too.

Fair enough. I thought I'd offer a friendly meet up to finalize it once and for all.

I apologized for trying to make an ass out of you earlier, it'd be nice if you apologized for the PM ordeal. It was a sincere apology on my behalf.

Colin and I will meet up, I'm sure. Maybe even Dr. Dave.
 
Last edited:
I apologized for trying to make an ass out of you earlier, it'd be nice if you apologized for the PM ordeal. It was a sincere apology on my behalf.
Click to expand...

Sure, I apologize, even though I don't know what the ordeal was. I didn't do it to embarrass you or anything.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sure, I apologize, even though I don't know what the ordeal was. I didn't do it to embarrass you or anything.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I know you didn't do it to embarrass me since the message had to do with me trying to let you out (not the other way around) to avoid the war that followed. When I send a PM to you or anyone, it's private...end of story. That's the ordeal. I would never post anyone's PM publicly.

You may never believe me when I say this, but I PMed you with good intentions.

Dave
 
I was just thinking about bringing some string, some tape, a protractor, paper, a marker and a laser pointer. That stuff is right up your alley, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I don't think those things will help bridge our communication gap. I think it's more fundamental than geometry - maybe different "logic languages".

pj
chgo
 
That one is able to do this contortion makes me leery of watching one prove that the 90 - 90 works for all cut angles and all distances.
Click to expand...

How about the question of where the shooter places his hand for each shot? Or whether he really hits centerball? We can't see any of these things on videos - they're worthless except to illustrate that those who make them and those who refer to them don't understand the first thing about proving something.

pj
chgo
 
I had a quick question: will the aiming method work for 0 degree (i.e. straight-in) shots?

I know that no method is really necessary for a straight-in shot, but I think it would be helpful to know where the system's edges are.

If it won't work for a 0 degree shot, what about a 1 degree shot? 2 degrees, etc.?
 
Funny, I have read every post in this thread and I am still waiting for a detailed "how" from Ron V or Cleary, the people responsible for this thread being started.

Hu

Patrick Johnson said:
You seem to forget, Hu, that it was the "why" questions that actually finally revealed the detailed "how" instructions. Asking why made the system's users get specific about it and in the process clarified the instructions - and revealed that there are differences between the way RonV says to do it and the way some here say to do it, and some confusion about what they're really trying to say.

You also seem to forget that there have been "why" threads started that just as quickly descended into arguments. Why aren't you complaining about that?

I didn't say I'd stay out of "how-to" threads - I think both discussions should take place together so each can reveal things about the other. I said I'd try not to be disruptive and asked that others do the same.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
cigjonser said:
I had a quick question: will the aiming method work for 0 degree (i.e. straight-in) shots?

I know that no method is really necessary for a straight-in shot, but I think it would be helpful to know where the system's edges are.

If it won't work for a 0 degree shot, what about a 1 degree shot? 2 degrees, etc.?
Click to expand...
YES........
 
cigjonser said:
I had a quick question: will the aiming method work for 0 degree (i.e. straight-in) shots?

I know that no method is really necessary for a straight-in shot, but I think it would be helpful to know where the system's edges are.

If it won't work for a 0 degree shot, what about a 1 degree shot? 2 degrees, etc.?
Click to expand...

For a 1 degree shot, you might need to start around .010" to the side of the center of the CB while aiming around .010" to the side of the OB and pivot by moving your hip until the tip of the cue is moved .010" back to the center of the CB.

For a 0 degree shot, start at the center of the CB while aiming at the center of the OB.....
 
I like Hu's suggestion to take the why in a how thread elsewhere, but I think mixing the why with the how is better if all posts are written without agressive, offensive, or disrespectful tones. And if everyone just gave everyone else the benefit of the doubt, flames would never receive adequate fuel to burn a thread to the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top