using the Joe Tucker/contact point aiming system

PKM

PKM

OB-1 Kenobi
Silver Member
I've been trying out Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers system. if you're not familiar with it, here's Bob Jewett's review (pdf)

I think it's an ingenious way of picking out the contact points on the cue ball and object ball. I haven't tried it long enough to see if it really works for me, I'm just wondering about other peoples' experiences trying to learn this way of aiming. For me, I'm having a really hard time visualizing the contact point on the front of the cue ball. From my perception, it lacks the precision that is the point of the system. I may be crazy, but it seems easier to visualize the center of the ghost ball. Of course the aim is completely equivalent, it's just a different way of visualizing (in both cases the reference aim excludes throw and other factors, which Joe talks about).

Anyway, I was wondering if other people use the system, either with or without Joe's take on it, or had a learning curve trying to use it.
 
I think for someone that can visualize this system it's great. Just like other systems work for other people. I'm with you though, I can't get the hang of aiming at point that I can't see when I am down on the ball.
 
SoundWaves said:
I think for someone that can visualize this system it's great. Just like other systems work for other people. I'm with you though, I can't get the hang of aiming at point that I can't see when I am down on the ball.
Click to expand...
How far down do you get? Are you guys using the balls with the numbers on them? Just curious. I haven't used them myself but I watched Joe use them and he explained it really well. I could understand how it would be more difficult with no numbers though.

BVal
 
PKM said:
I've been trying out Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers system. if you're not familiar with it, here's Bob Jewett's review (pdf)

I think it's an ingenious way of picking out the contact points on the cue ball and object ball. I haven't tried it long enough to see if it really works for me, I'm just wondering about other peoples' experiences trying to learn this way of aiming. For me, I'm having a really hard time visualizing the contact point on the front of the cue ball. From my perception, it lacks the precision that is the point of the system. I may be crazy, but it seems easier to visualize the center of the ghost ball. Of course the aim is completely equivalent, it's just a different way of visualizing (in both cases the reference aim excludes throw and other factors, which Joe talks about).

Anyway, I was wondering if other people use the system, either with or without Joe's take on it, or had a learning curve trying to use it.
Click to expand...

I don't have the balls with the numbers. I simply estimate where the points are.

I use it for most of my shots, for visualizing how I want the cue ball to strike the object ball. Once I have that line of sight, I make my adjustments for how much the cue ball will squirt if I shoot with english, as I often do, how much throw is likely for the speed of stroke and quantity of spin, how much swerve will affect the shot depending on balls in use and cloth, humidity, chalkiness on the cloth, and so on.

However, it all starts out with those contact points.

Flex
 
BVal said:
How far down do you get? Are you guys using the balls with the numbers on them? Just curious. I haven't used them myself but I watched Joe use them and he explained it really well. I could understand how it would be more difficult with no numbers though.

BVal
Click to expand...

I'm not sure It's about getting down on the ball. I think I just have a hard time trying to line something up that doesn't corespond with the same direction of your stroke.
 
I've been using Joe's system for about 3 years. I like it. I had a chance to try the ball set a few weeks ago and actually didn't find it helpful, but if I were just starting with the system it probably would be.

At this point I only use the numbers as a starting point. I actually draw a mental line from the pocket, through the OB, all the way to the rail, instead of using the numbers themselves, which end up being an approximation.

SoundWaves, your comment is interesting to me. The problem you have is actually what made me like this system so much. For me, that really helped my concept of what was actually happening when I shot pool.
 
Hal, I've heard you are open to describe your aiming system on the phone but don't go away with it written. I reside in Russia and would have enjoued getting some knowledge right from the horse's mouth (hope this expression is correct here) but phone call is prohibitive to me.
Why don't you write a column or an essay?
 
SoundWaves said:
I think for someone that can visualize this system it's great. Just like other systems work for other people. I'm with you though, I can't get the hang of aiming at point that I can't see when I am down on the ball.
Click to expand...


I have the same problem. I asked Joe about this in a thread a while back and he said sometime he had to peak at the front of the cue ball to see the spot???

I don't use the balls much as they take too much of my time to set up. I think the real training trick comes from the repetition of shooting the same shot.
 
TheBook said:
I have the same problem. I asked Joe about this in a thread a while back and he said sometime he had to peak at the front of the cue ball to see the spot???

I don't use the balls much as they take too much of my time to set up. I think the real training trick comes from the repetition of shooting the same shot.
Click to expand...

The beauty of Joe's system is that it trains you to see the spots without actually looking at the front of the cue ball. Internalize the spot on the cue ball and set up often enough and it will become automatic, as it has for me. It's an aid to get you used to visualizing the contact point.

By the way, the stroke you put on the cue ball will alter where the object ball goes, but I'm sure you already know that.

The contact point, at least for me, is simply a reference point. IMHO, it's the most important part of the aiming sequence. If your perception of where the contact point is off by more than a little bit, you'll have much more trouble developing consistency, especially when shooting with english.

Flex
 
SoundWaves said:
I'm not sure It's about getting down on the ball. I think I just have a hard time trying to line something up that doesn't corespond with the same direction of your stroke.
Click to expand...

This is something I've been giving some thought to lately. The only methods that seem to allow you to shoot through the point where you're aiming are the ghost ball method and the spot on the cloth method.

That said, I'm sure there's something to the Joe Tucker system, since it's just a different take on the parallel lines that Mosconi wrote about way back when.
 
By the way, I don't understand why you have to visualize the far side of the cueball. If you were to draw a line from that far side contact point, straight through the cueball toward the shooter to the near side, wouldn't that point give you the same line to the object ball's contact point?

So couldn't you turn the numbered cueball around to face you? You may have to reverse the numbers, but wouldn't that work?
 
PKM said:
I've been trying out Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers system.

Anyway, I was wondering if other people use the system, either with or without Joe's take on it, or had a learning curve trying to use it.
Click to expand...

It helped me cutting shots on or very close to the rails as my mind visualized the numbers being aligned - getting off the subject a bit his booklet on practice routines was helpfull, but that device to attach to your cue was cheaply made in my opinion and broke.
 
maldito said:
It helped me cutting shots on or very close to the rails as my mind visualized the numbers being aligned - getting off the subject a bit his booklet on practice routines was helpfull, but that device to attach to your cue was cheaply made in my opinion and broke.
Click to expand...

I had one break on me too, and Joe promptly sent me a replacement, free of any charge, and also included an extra...

Top notch service, IMHO.

Flex
 
An Alternate Way to Use Joe's System?

Joe's aiming system uses numbered cue ball and object ball to "match up" the CB and OB contact points for each shot. One of the interesting aspects of the system is that the numbers are always aligned with the table: the "zero" contact points always point toward the ends of the table and the "nine" contact points always point toward the sides of the table.

Here's the first picture, with the balls aligned as Joe prescribes [see my second post below for the alternate way].

pj
chgo



attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Tucker System 1.jpg
    Tucker System 1.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 841
Last edited:
...and here's the second picture, with the balls aligned the alternative way (toward each other).

The system works on pretty much the same principle both ways, and I wonder what the advantages are to doing it Joe's prescribed way (above), if any.

Has anybody ever tried Joe's system this alternate way? Joe? Anybody? Mr. Bueller?

pj
chgo

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Tucker System 2.jpg
    Tucker System 2.jpg
    56.5 KB · Views: 740
Last edited:
bluepepper said:
By the way, I don't understand why you have to visualize the far side of the cueball. If you were to draw a line from that far side contact point, straight through the cueball toward the shooter to the near side, wouldn't that point give you the same line to the object ball's contact point?

So couldn't you turn the numbered cueball around to face you? You may have to reverse the numbers, but wouldn't that work?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea. It would work the same geometrically, and you wouldn't have to reverse the numbers (they start from zero at center ball and count to 9 in both directions).

pj
chgo
 
Patrick, regarding your two diagrams, the idea is that the numbers never change for a given object ball position, regardless of cue ball position.

As for using the numbers on the closer side of the CB, I'm not sure that makes it any easier since it doesn't change the fact that you're connecting the contact point on the other side of the CB. Think about the position of the two balls at contact, essentially you're sending that opposite position on the CB to its position in the ghost ball.
 
Patrick, cool diagramming tool. Where can I get one?
I thought about the suggestion I made reversing the cueball contact points to the close side, and something tells me it wouldn't work. At least not the way Joe has the balls set up aligned to the table. Maybe the way they are aligned in your second diagram, facing each other might work, but I can't seem to visualize it well enough to tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top