Ron V aiming system video and diagrams

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ, I agree with your belief that the "feel factor" is important in this system. Do you believe that for you to have won this bet requires a fixed bridge pivot point (you know the definition of that term - i.e. no lateral cue motion and thus no FHE can be applied?

I think we should forget the bet - it was just a pissing match that distracted from the real conversation.

I believe that for the system to make all shots requires the pivot point to move somehow (up to an inch for the 59-inch shot Dave demonstrated on video). I'm not clear exactly how Dave thinks the pivot can move this much without moving the hand itself. I think it's obvious it can't.

I also think the "virtual sliding pivot point" depicted in Cleary's animation is a fantasy. So up to now we haven't seen or heard anything that supports the idea that all shots can be made strictly by working the system, without any "shooter guidance".

That is the basis of your adversary's argument - that the bet contemplated a real (supple) hand be used for the bridge, not a mechanical bridge.

Again, I don't think the bet is important. We never even settled on what the bet was.

As I see it, even with a stationary bridge base, you can move the upper bridge around enough to impart satisfactory FHE (combined with the BHE resulting from the "hip pivot") to make practically any shot. And if you line up initially appropriately, the upper bridge motion is not very noticeable. This upper bridge hand motion is where the feel factor comes in, IMO.

Have you tried to deform your bridge hand enough to move the pivot point an inch sideways? I don't think you can do it without moving (or at least lifting) some part of your hand that's touching the cloth. I'd recommend staying away from any system that requires that.

I think it's much more likely that the shooter deforms his bridge a little, places his bridge hand in a slightly different position, and maybe hits the CB slightly offcenter - a combination of some or all of the possible ways that together add up to the "adjustment" needed.

We can prove geometrically what isn't possible, but there's no way to prove over the internet what Dave, RonV and other system users actually do to make the system work for them. Thankfully, there's also no way to get at each other physically while we argue about it.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

Spidey,

I don't think we need an direct overhead video to see what is happening. Just a tripod on a table looking over your shoulder at a fairly steep angle should be good enough. Zoomed in just tight enough to show the OB in frame for a 59" shot.

Colin

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It isn't really important what would be "in my favor" - that's just about betting and egos.

It's in everybody's favor to learn something about how these systems work, and if moving the bridge/pivotpoint is the answer, then that's what I want to learn.

We've strayed from the central question: If the bridge moves then the system has a significant "feel factor" - otherwise how does the system automatically move the bridge exactly the right amount? I propose that it can't, and that the player himself makes the necessary adjustment by feel, using the pivot as his "refined estimate".

I propose that this is how all these "approximation" systems work, and I still wonder why it should upset anybody if it's true. It wouldn't make them "bad" systems.

I think maybe I just need to use a more flattering term than "approximation systems". How about "calibration systems"?

Calibrate:
1. Make fine adjustments or divide into marked intervals for optimal measuring.
2. Mark (the scale of a measuring instrument) so that it can be read in the desired units.

These systems give the shooter a "measuring instrument" with "marks" that can be easily found. Once the closest "calibration mark" is found the shooter makes final aiming refinements based on his acquired skill and experience.

pj
chgo

The bridge doesn't move. Get a lesson, Pat

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think we should forget the bet - it was just a pissing match that distracted from the real conversation.

I believe that for the system to make all shots requires the pivot point to move somehow (up to an inch for the 59-inch shot Dave demonstrated on video). I'm not clear exactly how Dave thinks the pivot can move this much without moving the hand itself. I think it's obvious it can't.

I also think the "virtual sliding pivot point" depicted in Cleary's animation is a fantasy. So up to now we haven't seen or heard anything that supports the idea that all shots can be made strictly by working the system, without any "shooter guidance".



Again, I don't think the bet is important. We never even settled on what the bet was.



Have you tried to deform your bridge hand enough to move the pivot point an inch sideways? I don't think you can do it without moving (or at least lifting) some part of your hand that's touching the cloth. I'd recommend staying away from any system that requires that.

I think it's much more likely that the shooter deforms his bridge a little, places his bridge hand in a slightly different position, and maybe hits the CB slightly offcenter - a combination of some or all of the possible ways that together add up to the "adjustment" needed.

We can prove geometrically what isn't possible, but there's no way to prove over the internet what Dave, RonV and other system users actually do to make the system work for them. Thankfully, there's also no way to get at each other physically while we argue about it.

pj
chgo

PJ, meet up and find out. Of course this can be proved... it's preposterous to say it can't be. Like I said.... laser pointer, poster board, protractor, string, marker and a ruler.... I can prove it and would love to..... but it'll be in-person when I do it.

It seems as though those who have the knowledge have no problem with this--- those who don't sound frustrated and cry foul. My advice: get a lesson

 

[eezbank]

PJ, meet up and find out. Of course this can be proved... it's preposterous to say it can't be. Like I said.... laser pointer, poster board, protractor, string, marker and a ruler.... I can prove it and would love to..... but it'll be in-person when I do it.

It seems as though those who have the knowledge have no problem with this--- those who don't sound frustrated and cry foul. My advice: get a lesson

i think what he is saying is you will never prove it to him. he has made his mind up. it's not possible. if we are really using a system it's vodoo or some david blane slight of hand. it's all feel. we've just tricked ourselves into thinking it really works. i've played in tournaments in chicago and never run into this guy at any of them. i have a stack of p&b, inside english, az money list...you can't find him anywhere on the payout lists. how is it a guy with all this knowledge and playing ability is still underground? kinda makes me wonder

 

[cigjonser]

It seems that most of the problems came from two different definitions of "pivot point".

If the pivot point is defined as the white dot in the animation, then the pivot point is a point on the shaft which moves during the stroke. By this definition, if the cue was mailed to Canada, the pivot point would be in Canada.

This is a very non-traditional use of the term "pivot point" and is what led to confusion I think. Most people refer to the pivot point as the blue dot in the animation, and no matter what is done with the cue the blue dot will never move.

I remember Dave mentioning that he pivots at a point near the back of the cue and also doesn't move his bridge hand. This doesn't seem possible, so maybe there is another difference in terms going on.

Dave, here's a hypothetical situation just to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing:

Line up a shot with the tip aligned at the edge of the cue ball (pre-pivot) so that the butt of the cue is right over the rail of the table. Now have a friend drive a nail through the butt of the cue and into the table. Now we have the pivot point at the butt of the cue according to the traditional definition of "pivot point". Would you still be able to move the tip of the cue to center ball without moving your bridge hand or any part of it?

 

[shankster8]

Right on PJ and right on Spidey!!!! Hell of a thread!!!! I've made my decision, and>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you both lose (the bet). Neither one of ya pinned down the bet language sufficiently to trap the other. PJ - good analyses, but IMO you kept avoiding the issue of a requirement for a stationary pivot point which I believe would have won the bet for you. I presume you avoided that because you realized at some point that Spidey et al were relying on a supple hand bridge, and you on a rigid mechanical bridge, but that specification was not spelled out in the bet language, but you knew there was merit to the argument that the bet contemplated a hand bridge.

Spidey, I have no doubt that Ron V's aiming system can help our shotmaking - enough guys claim to have objectively tried it and are convinced of its value - I will give them (and you) the benefit of the doubt. I do believe feel is involved, though, and hope that some of the AZ scientists, including PJ, will solve that before long. Your initial misunderstandings regarding the meaning of "pivot point" kind of pushed me into the other corner early on. But I knew all along that you had defensible bet if FHE could be applied via a supple bridge, but your statements about pivoting around the butt etc. disallowed my taking your side unless you admitted that. You done good though, 'cept for a couple near threats - not worth it - just an internet debate. That's the way I see things! (So What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Thanks for the entertainment men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Doc Thomas, please excuse my being pompous by calling you pompous!!!!!!

 

[SJDinPHX]

PJ, meet up and find out. Of course this can be proved... it's preposterous to say it can't be. Like I said.... laser pointer, poster board, protractor, string, marker and a ruler.... I can prove it and would love to..... but it'll be in-person when I do it.

It seems as though those who have the knowledge have no problem with this--- those who don't sound frustrated and cry foul. My advice: get a lesson

Excuse me for butting in again. I noticed you guys (all six of you) ignore my posts. And thats OK. I am a novice not worthy of your time. I don't even know how to highlight the paragraphs I would like to refer to.
Sooo, I will type it in.... Spidey sez' "Of course this can't be proved, but with a laser pointer, poster board, protractor,string, marker,and a ruler, I can prove my point." Would that be legal in tournament play ? A slide rule is allowed, but time to compute all the variables may not be. Why don't the six of you wake up to the fact that pool is NOT a Physics science.
You can't even agree with each other. How do you expect an aspiring, young pool player to buy into your theorie's I still think you guy's need your own private forum to debate your "infallable systems". I will continue to "play by ear" as I will advise all who will listen to me. (which is about 95% of this forum. Carry on gentlemen, create another 500 post tirade with each other. :boring2: :boring2: :boring2:

Dick

 

[shankster8]

Excuse me for butting in again. I noticed you guys (all six of you) ignore my posts. And thats OK. I am a novice not worthy of your time. I don't even know how to highlight the paragraphs I would like to refer to.
Sooo, I will type it in.... Spidey sez' "Of course this can't be proved, but with a laser pointer, poster board, protractor,string, marker,and a ruler, I can prove my point." Would that be legal in tournament play ? A slide rule is allowed, but time to compute all the variables may not be. Why don't the six of you wake up to the fact that pool is NOT a Physics science.
You can't even agree with each other. How do you expect an aspiring, young pool player to buy into your theorie's I still think you guy's need your own private forum to debate your "infallable systems". I will continue to "play by ear" as I will advise all who will listen to me. (which is about 95% of this forum. Carry on gentlemen, create another 500 post tirade with each other. :boring2: :boring2: :boring2:

Dick

Doctor Dick, I doubt you're being ignored; infact, I apologized to you in the post immediately above yours. Wow, I see you deleted your credentials, so I'll not call you pompous again on the basis of this post. Relax, have fun, it's just a bunch of pool players who get a little rambunctious(?) now and then.

 

[shankster8]

Excuse me for butting in again. I noticed you guys (all six of you) ignore my posts. And thats OK. I am a novice not worthy of your time. I don't even know how to highlight the paragraphs I would like to refer to.
Sooo, I will type it in.... Spidey sez' "Of course this can't be proved, but with a laser pointer, poster board, protractor,string, marker,and a ruler, I can prove my point." Would that be legal in tournament play ? A slide rule is allowed, but time to compute all the variables may not be. Why don't the six of you wake up to the fact that pool is NOT a Physics science.
You can't even agree with each other. How do you expect an aspiring, young pool player to buy into your theorie's I still think you guy's need your own private forum to debate your "infallable systems". I will continue to "play by ear" as I will advise all who will listen to me. (which is about 95% of this forum. Carry on gentlemen, create another 500 post tirade with each other. :boring2: :boring2: :boring2:


Dick

Doc, I just reread your post and realize you've directed it primarily at six people. I imagine I've made about five out of the nearly 600 posts, but am uncertain if I am one of the six you're angry at ( or frustrated with, if that's better). Clue me/others in as to who is addressed, if you seek meaningful response. JMHO

 

[SJDinPHX]

Doc, I just reread your post and realize you've directed it primarily at six people. I imagine I've made about five out of the nearly 600 posts, but am uncertain if I am one of the six you're angry at ( or frustrated with, if that's better). Clue me/others in as to who is addressed, if you seek meaningful response. JMHO

Shankster, I am not angry at anyone. Frustrated, yes. For all the reasons previously listed. You have been a fair mediator. Its probably my take on the whole scenario, that causes me to lash out at the "six offender's"
I wish them all a safe place in pool heaven. I know they mean well, but they are horribly mis-guided.

Dick

 

[shankster8]

Shankster, I am not angry at anyone. Frustrated, yes. For all the reasons previously listed. You have been a fair mediator. Its probably my take on the whole scenario, that causes me to lash out at the "six offender's"
I wish them all a safe place in pool heaven. I know they mean well, but they are horribly mis-guided.

Dick

Right on, Doc!!!!! Good Vibes!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It seems that most of the problems came from two different definitions of "pivot point".

If the pivot point is defined as the white dot in the animation, then the pivot point is a point on the shaft which moves during the stroke. By this definition, if the cue was mailed to Canada, the pivot point would be in Canada.

This is a very non-traditional use of the term "pivot point" and is what led to confusion I think. Most people refer to the pivot point as the blue dot in the animation, and no matter what is done with the cue the blue dot will never move.

I remember Dave mentioning that he pivots at a point near the back of the cue and also doesn't move his bridge hand. This doesn't seem possible, so maybe there is another difference in terms going on.

Dave, here's a hypothetical situation just to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing:

Line up a shot with the tip aligned at the edge of the cue ball (pre-pivot) so that the butt of the cue is right over the rail of the table. Now have a friend drive a nail through the butt of the cue and into the table. Now we have the pivot point at the butt of the cue according to the traditional definition of "pivot point". Would you still be able to move the tip of the cue to center ball without moving your bridge hand or any part of it?

The bet was the bridge wasn't the only pivot point. Your same scenario... drive a nail through the cue where you hold it. If that were the case, everyone would always miss the ball completely over 30" or so with a 10" bridge. That, in my mind, nutted up my side of the argument.

I did say I pivot from the back of my cue, which I do... just not with the example given. I pivot from my butt while standing over the shot before I even get down on the ball.

 

[cigjonser]

I did say I pivot from the back of my cue, which I do... just not with the example given. I pivot from my butt while standing over the shot before I even get down on the ball.

So using the method you employ, the bridge hand is free to move in any direction (up, down, side to side, and forward/backward) in order to align itself according to the demands of the pivot because it is not yet set on the table. The pivot is done in the air.

Technically then, the bridge hand does move. I see what you're saying in that once the bridge hand is on the table there is no movement, but since the bridge hand starts in the air (during the pivot), and ends on the table, there must be, at the very least, downward movement (from in the air to on the table). And I believe this motion must also include slight lateral motion as well (1 1/8" or so, if you see where I'm going here) so that the tip is aligned to center ball.

Would you agree?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So using the method you employ, the bridge hand is free to move in any direction (up, down, side to side, and forward/backward) in order to align itself according to the demands of the pivot because it is not yet set on the table. The pivot is done in the air.

Technically then, the bridge hand does move. I see what you're saying in that once the bridge hand is on the table there is no movement, but since the bridge hand starts in the air (during the pivot), and ends on the table, there must be, at the very least, downward movement (from in the air to on the table). And I believe this motion must also include slight lateral motion as well (1 1/8" or so, if you see where I'm going here) so that the tip is aligned to center ball.

Would you agree?

I wanna make sure you don't get confused between this thread and what I do during play. I like to air-pivot, which is totally different than this thread.

There is lateral movement of the cue in the bridge- although it's very slight.... just slight enough for me to make the ball from the tip starting at the 90 position from 75+" away with a body pivot.

Two different scenarios.

Dave

 

[cigjonser]

There is lateral movement of the cue in the bridge- although it's very slight.... just slight enough for me to make the ball from the tip starting at the 90 position from 75+" away with a body pivot.

Ok I think I understand what you're saying. By "very slight" are you talking 1mm, or like 1/4" or ?

 

[SJDinPHX]

Ok I think I understand what you're saying. By "very slight" are you talking 1mm, or like 1/4" or ?

Yes, somewhere between those two.

Dr. Dick

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It seems as though those who have the knowledge have no problem with this--- those who don't sound frustrated and cry foul.

I (politely) disagree with this. It seems to me i's the system users who sound frustrated and cry foul when the "analysts" don't just accept their claims about how the systems work. The first heated comments are usually along the lines of "how dare you question me when you haven't even taken a lesson?" or "you're closed minded and just have something against systems." I think a tally of posts would show that contentious posts come first and more frequently from the system defenders' side.

I'm not saying this to start arguments - I'm simply replying to the comment you made about it.

pj
chgo

 

[cigjonser]

I (politely) disagree with this. It seems to me i's the system users who sound frustrated and cry foul when the "analysts" don't just accept their claims about how the systems work. The first heated comments are usually along the lines of "how dare you question me when you haven't even taken a lesson?" or "you're closed minded and just have something against systems." I think a tally of posts would show that contentious posts come first and more frequently from the system defenders' side.

I consider myself one of the "analysts" in that I'm also trying to figure out the why's and how's of the systems, but In defense of those trying to explain the system, a lot of times the analysts drive them insane.

Many of these threads boil down to this abridged conversion:

System User: C2E is great.

Analyst: How does it work geometrically?

System User: I don't know.

Analyst: Well tell me what you do when you shoot.

System User: I do this and this.

Analyst: That's physically impossible.

System User: That's what I do though.

Analyst: No you don't. Maybe you think you do, but you don't.

System User: WTF?! You did ask ME, what *I* do right?

Analyst: It can't work that way. Maybe if you tell me how it works I can make sense of it.

System User: I already said I don't know. If you want to know that try calling the creator of the system for free.

Analyst: No. I want YOU to tell me how it works, but you can't because it defies the laws of nature.

System User: GAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

...etc...

So personally, I tend to put more blame on the analysts.

JMHO

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Spidey:
There is lateral movement of the cue in the bridge- although it's very slight.... just slight enough for me to make the ball from the tip starting at the 90 position from 75+" away with a body pivot.

cigjonser:
Ok I think I understand what you're saying. By "very slight" are you talking 1mm, or like 1/4" or ?

Sorry to be the voice of mathematical reason again, but even at that great distance it would take a pivot point shift of 1/2" to hit the OB at all. To hit the OB with a half ball hit (a 30 degree cut) would take more than 5/8" of pivot point shift.

pj
chgo