Patrick Johnson said:
That wasn't a threat - or meant to be. I'm just saying you're paying / I'm paying when there's a winner determined.... like there is here.
Ron V aiming system video and diagrams
- Thread starter cleary
- Start date
That wasn't a threat - or meant to be. I'm just saying you're paying / I'm paying when there's a winner determined.... like there is here.
bluepepper said:
That's what the back bridge is for.
pj
chgo
What have you "determined"? Have you looked at my test conditions?
pj
chgo
How many Patrick Johnsons do you think there are in a city of 8 million people?
Who are you, by the way?
pj
chgo
the line of aim is different because the head moves
Regards,
Dave
PS: It seems like we finally have gotten somewhere with this thread. The bridge does serve as a fixed pivot point (even if the cue is moving through the pivot as the cue rotates), and the line of aim is different with a hip pivot as compared to a back-hand pivot because the head (and the line of vision) moves. Sounds simple enough to me. I don't know why this took hundreds of messages full of personal attacks.
Thanks Ron. I appreciate you being so willing to be available and answer questions. It is also refreshing to read something polite and respectful for a change. I will certainly look you up the next time I'm in the NY area. I also hope to give you a ring soon.RonV said:
Regards,
Dave
PS: It seems like we finally have gotten somewhere with this thread. The bridge does serve as a fixed pivot point (even if the cue is moving through the pivot as the cue rotates), and the line of aim is different with a hip pivot as compared to a back-hand pivot because the head (and the line of vision) moves. Sounds simple enough to me. I don't know why this took hundreds of messages full of personal attacks.
ALRIGHT. After a long night of "rest", Ive come to one conclusion.
If you approach ANYTHING with a closed mind, you shouldn't approach it at all. If you cannot even get on a table, hit some balls and tell us DUMB PEOPLE why we ARE pocketing balls, then this is just a waste of my time.
One thing is clear to me, the system works. Ive tried to show you why, but you don't believe me and think is just "smoke and mirrors". Thats fine.
If anyone is interested in the system, email me (norkafilms@gmail.com) and I will keep you up to date with the videos and explanations of this system and other systems that WORK. Im planning on building a website for this and other little tricks that I find interesting. No calculators, formulas, Bunsen burners or protractors needed. Just interesting things on a pool table.
For everyone who has tried this system and its working, thank you for your open mind. I did this for you and I did this for Ron V.
You guys can keep hashing this out on the internet, IM done. No more posts in this thread. Its just not getting anywhere and no matter what we do, they will never learn til they get up and try it for themselves.
Patrick, if you want to come to new york and discuss this like adults, between myself, Ron and Dave... Im sure we can buy you a ticket. Just bring your $1000, cue and an open mind.
Im out.
If you approach ANYTHING with a closed mind, you shouldn't approach it at all. If you cannot even get on a table, hit some balls and tell us DUMB PEOPLE why we ARE pocketing balls, then this is just a waste of my time.
One thing is clear to me, the system works. Ive tried to show you why, but you don't believe me and think is just "smoke and mirrors". Thats fine.
If anyone is interested in the system, email me (norkafilms@gmail.com) and I will keep you up to date with the videos and explanations of this system and other systems that WORK. Im planning on building a website for this and other little tricks that I find interesting. No calculators, formulas, Bunsen burners or protractors needed. Just interesting things on a pool table.
For everyone who has tried this system and its working, thank you for your open mind. I did this for you and I did this for Ron V.
You guys can keep hashing this out on the internet, IM done. No more posts in this thread. Its just not getting anywhere and no matter what we do, they will never learn til they get up and try it for themselves.
Patrick, if you want to come to new york and discuss this like adults, between myself, Ron and Dave... Im sure we can buy you a ticket. Just bring your $1000, cue and an open mind.
Im out.
NaturalEnglish
Banned
This whole thread seems to be about the use of English words to describe whats going on. The bridge is the point at which ALL pivots occurs. If you pull back the cue...the point at which the cue initially pivoted moved back. If you now move the cue side ways...you are pivoting about the same pivot point and establishing a new point of pivot. The old point of pivot moved back. Got it?
Ok I see how the "system" works. But how far do you pull back the cue before you move the cue sideways? 1"? 2"? 3"? The pull back distance is a variable thats shooter dependent and makes this "system" hard to use. Whether you use BHE or hip movement is not as important as how far the tip is from the cb when you move the cue tip back to center ball.
I say PJ wins.
Ok I see how the "system" works. But how far do you pull back the cue before you move the cue sideways? 1"? 2"? 3"? The pull back distance is a variable thats shooter dependent and makes this "system" hard to use. Whether you use BHE or hip movement is not as important as how far the tip is from the cb when you move the cue tip back to center ball.
I say PJ wins.
You talking about hand bridge in your bet....nothing to do with a mechanical bridge. 
. Fight it however you want...but I think it clear Dave won this bet just based on your agreement that his bridge hand doesn't move. No assumption were made that the cue should not move for the same pivot point which you assume based on your gemeotryl. You also state the the pivot point is the same if you used BackHand or hip movement... that has also been proven to be not true.
PJ, you have to agree now that the pivot point does change based on Ron hip pivot (movement) as the line of aim change even thought the bridge hand is fixed. You for sure lost on this point as well.
Unless you can prove that Band Hand movement of the cue is the Same as Hip movement from Ron technique than you will win...but it's clear from diagram from other that it's not the case.
Grab a shaft and try this for yourself and you'll understand. At the very least your agreement that bridge does not move and your agreement to proven fact that pivot point change on the bridge lock the win for Dave IMO.
As mentioned many time...your theory was based on "exact" geometry which did Not account for the "Feel" factor. If you try this technique yourself...you notice that there is a change even thought your bridge hand is fixed.
Regards,
Duc.
. Fight it however you want...but I think it clear Dave won this bet just based on your agreement that his bridge hand doesn't move. No assumption were made that the cue should not move for the same pivot point which you assume based on your gemeotryl. You also state the the pivot point is the same if you used BackHand or hip movement... that has also been proven to be not true. PJ, you have to agree now that the pivot point does change based on Ron hip pivot (movement) as the line of aim change even thought the bridge hand is fixed. You for sure lost on this point as well.
Unless you can prove that Band Hand movement of the cue is the Same as Hip movement from Ron technique than you will win...but it's clear from diagram from other that it's not the case.
Grab a shaft and try this for yourself and you'll understand. At the very least your agreement that bridge does not move and your agreement to proven fact that pivot point change on the bridge lock the win for Dave IMO.
As mentioned many time...your theory was based on "exact" geometry which did Not account for the "Feel" factor. If you try this technique yourself...you notice that there is a change even thought your bridge hand is fixed.
Regards,
Duc.
Patrick Johnson said:
PJ's Lizard Aiming System...LOL
Patrick Johnson View profile
More options Sep 12 2000, 3:29 pm
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <REMOV...@21stcentury.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:32:45 -0500
Local: Tues, Sep 12 2000 3:32 pm
We've talked about this a few times. I prefer to sight down the
contact point-to-contact point line, but that puts my head in
different positions over the stick depending on the shot and can be
physically difficult for cue ball contact points "outside" the stick,
so I adjust it for comfort and consistency. I also like to move my
head back and forth to sight down more than one of the available
lines, including cue ball path, just for cross reference (I might look
a little like a lizard doing this). I like to know that my stick is
pointing where I want it to, but "sight down the stick" doesn't work
by itself for me.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson View profile
More options Sep 12 2000, 3:29 pm
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <REMOV...@21stcentury.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:32:45 -0500
Local: Tues, Sep 12 2000 3:32 pm
We've talked about this a few times. I prefer to sight down the
contact point-to-contact point line, but that puts my head in
different positions over the stick depending on the shot and can be
physically difficult for cue ball contact points "outside" the stick,
so I adjust it for comfort and consistency. I also like to move my
head back and forth to sight down more than one of the available
lines, including cue ball path, just for cross reference (I might look
a little like a lizard doing this). I like to know that my stick is
pointing where I want it to, but "sight down the stick" doesn't work
by itself for me.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Better yet it's the "CYLINDER/TUBE, JEDI SWORD" aiming system
Patrick Johnson View profile
More options May 21 1999, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1999/05/21
Subject: Re: Ghost Ball Trainer
I agree it's a visualization thing, and that means it's very difficult
to be sure what different people mean. For instance, I would say I
never use the ghost ball method, and that I always aim
contact-point-to-contact-point. But when I think of the ghost ball
method, I think of aiming the center of the cue ball at the center of
the ghost ball. Someone else might say it means visualizing the ghost
ball touching the object ball (another way of visualizing the object
ball contact point). It depends on what you have in mind when aiming,
which is not often described in detail. Sometimes the words we use (or
don't use) get in the way of communicating exactly what we mean, like
when we use names for aiming methods rather than descriptions.
Just for fun, here's how I visualize aiming a simple cut shot with no
spin (after I'm down in stance and basically lined up): I usually see
the cue ball as a kind of cylinder or tube extending forward to the
object ball, with its diameter diminishing as the distance increases (as
it would appear to if there really was a cylinder there). When aligning
my stick for the shot, I see this tube as kind of a thick Jedi sword
laser beam that moves left and right with my stick until it lines up
perfectly on the object ball. So you might say I use a "ghost tube"
method, but I do consciously look at the object ball contact point and
try to line up the (estimated) cue ball contact point with it. So is
this a "straight shot" or a "cut shot?" I don't know. Is it a "contact
point" or a "ghost ball/tube" method? Search me.
There's lots more that I "visualize" in addition to strictly aiming,
including how I think the stroke will feel (and the feel of hitting the
cue ball), the "drag" the surface cloth will have on the cue ball, the
physical impact of the cue ball and object ball (even the sound it will
make), the curving path of the cue ball after impact, etc., etc. All
this takes a microsecond, and doesn't mean that I'm spending lots of
time "calculating" the shot... it's more like my "intuition" for the
shot just includes lots of conscious physical specifics. I work on
increasing the amount of this conscious detail that I can handle without
it becoming a distraction, because I feel it improves my game, and my
learning curve, tremendously (with all respect to the pure "feel"
shooters).
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson View profile
More options May 21 1999, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: rec.sport.billiard
From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Date: 1999/05/21
Subject: Re: Ghost Ball Trainer
I agree it's a visualization thing, and that means it's very difficult
to be sure what different people mean. For instance, I would say I
never use the ghost ball method, and that I always aim
contact-point-to-contact-point. But when I think of the ghost ball
method, I think of aiming the center of the cue ball at the center of
the ghost ball. Someone else might say it means visualizing the ghost
ball touching the object ball (another way of visualizing the object
ball contact point). It depends on what you have in mind when aiming,
which is not often described in detail. Sometimes the words we use (or
don't use) get in the way of communicating exactly what we mean, like
when we use names for aiming methods rather than descriptions.
Just for fun, here's how I visualize aiming a simple cut shot with no
spin (after I'm down in stance and basically lined up): I usually see
the cue ball as a kind of cylinder or tube extending forward to the
object ball, with its diameter diminishing as the distance increases (as
it would appear to if there really was a cylinder there). When aligning
my stick for the shot, I see this tube as kind of a thick Jedi sword
laser beam that moves left and right with my stick until it lines up
perfectly on the object ball. So you might say I use a "ghost tube"
method, but I do consciously look at the object ball contact point and
try to line up the (estimated) cue ball contact point with it. So is
this a "straight shot" or a "cut shot?" I don't know. Is it a "contact
point" or a "ghost ball/tube" method? Search me.
There's lots more that I "visualize" in addition to strictly aiming,
including how I think the stroke will feel (and the feel of hitting the
cue ball), the "drag" the surface cloth will have on the cue ball, the
physical impact of the cue ball and object ball (even the sound it will
make), the curving path of the cue ball after impact, etc., etc. All
this takes a microsecond, and doesn't mean that I'm spending lots of
time "calculating" the shot... it's more like my "intuition" for the
shot just includes lots of conscious physical specifics. I work on
increasing the amount of this conscious detail that I can handle without
it becoming a distraction, because I feel it improves my game, and my
learning curve, tremendously (with all respect to the pure "feel"
shooters).
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Hi PJ,
How the shot was made has already been proven by diagram and shown by Dave on his video. Have you tried Ron technique vs the Band Hand pivot yourself? That's the proof.
Setup the same shot that on Dave's video.
1) Shoot by pivoting with only the back hand. Notice the direction of the cue ball line of aim...and shoot.
2) Shoot by pivoting (Moving) your body hip...you feel your arm move...bridge should not move and shoot. Reason you made this shot is pivot point change very slight on your fixed bridge hand as you shift your hip.
When you try this, please let me know what you think and if it work for you. This is probably the best proof for yourself..regardless of this bet. You owe it to yourself to try this out and I think you may be a better person to explain why it works.
Regards,
Duc.
How the shot was made has already been proven by diagram and shown by Dave on his video. Have you tried Ron technique vs the Band Hand pivot yourself? That's the proof.
Setup the same shot that on Dave's video.
1) Shoot by pivoting with only the back hand. Notice the direction of the cue ball line of aim...and shoot.
2) Shoot by pivoting (Moving) your body hip...you feel your arm move...bridge should not move and shoot. Reason you made this shot is pivot point change very slight on your fixed bridge hand as you shift your hip.
When you try this, please let me know what you think and if it work for you. This is probably the best proof for yourself..regardless of this bet. You owe it to yourself to try this out and I think you may be a better person to explain why it works.
Regards,
Duc.
Patrick Johnson said:
I don't "have to agree" with this because it's not true and not possible. If the bridge hand is fixed then the shot is the same. This "moving pivot point" nonsense is gibberish.
pj
chgo
Since we're in betting moods and you sound pretty sure of yourself, "Brian", wanna bet?
pj
chgo
With a fixed bridge, a fixed cue ball position and a centerball hit the cue ball's path doesn't change. Moving your head and your "line of aim" doesn't change that.
pj
chgo
Cuemaster98 said:
How can you say that Dave's video proved anything. The camera is across the room at about the worst angle it could be to prove anything. There's no way of seeing his actual alignment before the pivot. The camera is too far away to see if any part of his hand moved. The changing from closed bridge to open blows any chance of accuracy as well. And he swoops when he strokes. I'm glad he did the video, but it proved absolutely nothing.
You can use the system to make shots - in that sense it "works". You can also use feel to make shots - in that sense feel also "works". How each works is the question. That's the meat of the debate - simply saying "it works" misses the point.
If I post a video showing me missing shots would you say that proves the system doesn't work?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
the bottom line!
I agree with you that the "moving pivot" vs. "fixed pivot" argument is useless and is leading nowhere. Honestly, I think it makes you, Spidey, and everybody else involved with the fighting look bad.
However, whether or not you pivot your whole body IS IMPORTANT, because the line of aim will be different. The cue will not be rotated as much with a body-pivot because the line of vision to center-ball has also rotated some, and the "perception" of center-ball might be different. This is what is important.
The other things that are extremely important are what your bridge length is and how much you move your head when you pivot your body. That's probably where the "feel" comes in, allowing one alignment (e.g., CTE), with a pivot, to create an infinite number of lines of aim.
Regards,
Dave
Patrick,Patrick Johnson said:
I agree with you that the "moving pivot" vs. "fixed pivot" argument is useless and is leading nowhere. Honestly, I think it makes you, Spidey, and everybody else involved with the fighting look bad.
However, whether or not you pivot your whole body IS IMPORTANT, because the line of aim will be different. The cue will not be rotated as much with a body-pivot because the line of vision to center-ball has also rotated some, and the "perception" of center-ball might be different. This is what is important.
The other things that are extremely important are what your bridge length is and how much you move your head when you pivot your body. That's probably where the "feel" comes in, allowing one alignment (e.g., CTE), with a pivot, to create an infinite number of lines of aim.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
Koop said:
LOL. Wow, thanks for digging up this time capsule. Not much has changed since then, except I don't do as much of the moving head lizard thing anymore and everything has gotten easier.
We discussed (and argued about) all these same things, including aiming systems, years and years ago on RSB (I think my first post on there was about twelve years ago). The RSB archives are a wealth of information if you rummage through them. You'll also find very informative posts from Bob Jewett and Mike Page (names you might recognize on AZB now) and also from Ron Shepard, who's knowledgable but only posts here very rarely (can't say I blame him). All these "smart guys", by the way, are excellent players - better than I am (although I keep trying to catch up).
pj
chgo