Best way to train for accuracy

[Low500]

--------------

 

[BC21]

I swear, man, if I had to try and visualize 1/10th of an inch or some other micro-measurement somewhere on a ball to pocket it, I'd quit this game and go back to baseball, even at my age.
All they got to do is just use 0-15-30-45 angles like the old fox Stan says and whack the ball. It'll go into the hole........unless they're hitting it crooked or too hard.
It just is not all that complex to me. Even my 20 year old granddaughter (who thinks pool is a silly waste of time) has got that understanding down cold. And her "stroke", if you can call it that, is as cockeyed as a crow eyeballing a watermelon.
Beats me....:shrug::shrug::shrug:

The 15-30-45 CTE perceptions are not angles. In other words, a 30° cte perception is seldom a 30° shot angle. I believe you still don't know CTE. And if you are really using CTE visuals and can't be at least 1/10 of an inch accurate on each of your TWO reference lines, then you are probably missing a lot of shots. I mean, if you think visualizing ONE line to a specific fractional ob point within 1/10 of an inch accuracy is complex, how in the world do you visualize TWO lines, each to a specific fractional point at the OB, then do a precise 1/2 tip offset manual pivot from the ccb perception line provided by the two visualized lines, and come anywhere close to pocket a ball?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Not once in the video do I say to aim at the ghostball. I simply used a ghostball to shown where the CB needs to be to produce the fractional hit. If you watch more than 35 seconds of the video you'll see that I move the ghostball out of the way in order to show exactly where to aim in REFERENCE to the OB edge, NOT the ghostball center. By aiming at a known point in reference to the edge of the OB, the aim line happens to pass through the ghostball. But instead of aiming at some estimated center point of an imaginary ghostball, I am aiming beyond that to a specific distance away from the OB edge.

I know exactly what you said and did. You can twist words and spin it all you want about getting to a fractional alignment but the fact is there's a lot of imagination going on to get there. It requires some accurate, and I do mean accurate imaginary holograms going on in the brain.

Your comment about Stan using CTE and me not using Poolology is wrong, and pointless. I do use Poolology when I need to use it, like on certain shots where maybe I don't feel confident in what I'm seeing, or I'll use on every shot to get myself back in stroke if I feel like I'm not seeing the shots as automatically as normal.

So now the story changes and the plot thickens. A new version.

Nonetheless, none of this makes a difference.

Of course it makes a difference if you're only using it a small portion of the time as opposed to all the time. It's like the guy who created and advertises the "MY PILLOW". He blabs on the commercials about how everyone will get the best support and sleep they've ever had in their life. Only to find out he sleeps on one of his own pillows occasionally when he has insomnia or a kink in his neck the chiropractor couldn't snap back into place.

What I show in the video, or on paper, or with math, can easily be proven on the table. It's an aiming tool that players can use when they need or want to use it.

I'd like to see some new and improved players proving it on the table with a bunch of videos as they explain the math and shot choices along with how they visualize the other 60 degree cut angles after the edge of the OB runs out.

 

[stevenw00d]

It is really sad to read all of these close minded comments. I read one thread on these forums and think it is a great, supportive place, and then read the next one and it reads like no one has any sense or respect for anyone else.
Some people see angles better than fractions. Some people see distances better than ghost balls. For any of you to say one system is "better" dumbfounds me. It is better for YOU. That is it. Whether you are seeing a distance off the ball, imagining a ghost ball, or lining up the edges of the ball, you are ALL needing to maintain exactly the same accuracy as the other because you're shooting at the same target (the pocket.) That location might be measured in fractions, decimals, angles, or millimeters, but it is held to the same tolerance if you want to make your shot.

As for BC21's statement that he doesn't always use Poology, that makes complete sense. If you use any system long enough, or just shoot pool long enough, you automatically see your aim point on some shots. That's all BC21 is saying... he doesn't have to go through the steps when he is in the groove, because he just knows it. All good players do this, and excellent players probably do this the majority of the time. BC21 isn't saying uses a different system when he needs to use a system, he is saying sometimes he just knows where to shoot (due to using a system that works for him for thousands and thousands of shots.)

 

[paultex]

I think "those silly fractions" are easier to see and line up with the edge of the CB. It's a very clear defined border and overlap from the edge of the CB to a fraction on the OB like a phase of the moon in it's various stages.

Aiming the fat thick center of the CB is guesswork because it's not clearly defined on the fraction of the OB.

You also don't want to aim the center of the CB to a contact point either because it will result in a miss. The center of the CB does NOT strike the contact point. The contact point (or fraction) is struck by an equal and opposite contact point on the CB.

If i may please, and I would like to put this to rest with no arguments from anyone or myself and take this however you or anyone else wants to, but I believe this to be the truth.

I workout with a player who is basically a legend. He thinks I'm an idiot and my aproach is complicated and unecessary, yet I prove without a doubt, by shot examples known as mindbenders, that contact point to contact point only gets one so far because of a phenomenon I describe as "the other side of the cueball". He cannot execute these mindbenders on command, so my points are valid, so he's the idiot, when he argues in the face of reality.

This mosconi technique that I hear mentioned from time to time is called in reality, the parallel system. It's what I call a true geometric connection of a shot relationship to a pocket. Not saying CTE is not, or any reference to CTE. I believe in perception because of the human element in association to the table.

I was told more than once from this legend, that mosconi did not want people to know how he truly aims, or at the least, there is some purposeful vagueness in mosconi's writings because many accomplished players are simply paranoid about giving away information that may lead to them getting beat.

I have one piece of physical proof to these assertions in a mosconi video, where he uses back hand English or a pivot, to shoot with English. He sets the shot up and accidentally shoots it "parallel" in a attempt to demonstrate a miss, and then quickly sets the shot up in a chuckle, saying "oh i hit it too good".

Oh?

The parallel system is how many of the old time players shot from what I am told by this legend and he swears by this method of contact point to contact point, producing a "line" and then another line is produced by your stick or another reference point picked up by a ghost ball to produce what I call, a "corridor" of two parallel lines and if the stroke matches that line down one side of the corridor at follow through, then the ob has no choice but to hit the pocket.

I cannot see parallel any more and when I could, I could not see it for every shot. I told this legend this and he agreed it's hard to see it for every shot relationship and that's when he said about using ghost ball to help find it on other shots.....but this does not mean he believes in ghost ball as a system, he thinks its retarded as a lone visual system, but he does agree with it to help find a second line when there is no other way.

When I could see the parallel connection on given shots, I knew I could not miss and I never did, no matter how hard or soft i struck, because it represents a true connection down the line of contact point to contact point and if those two areas meet in collision, as the legend also said, there is no known argument in this universe that can conclude the object ball will not meet the pocket and I obviously agree with that.

I believe him when he says this is how mosconi shot, as he has intimate knowledge and also said mosconi was the best at finding this alignment from any position on the table.

He also said that mosconi in his earlier days was more lower to the cue stick and as he got older, became more upright in attack, so in this transition over time, to describe how a particular player shot or what method they claim they used, is a bit argumentative because obviously something has changed, so when describing a claim, it's also best to list a chronology with it.

He said that stephen hendry never moved his head when pulling the trigger. I looked up some of his matches and said no no no, not true. He then said he never moved in his younger days, so I looked up a match in 1996 and I have to admit he was right, hendry kept his head just about perfectly still but as he got older, a head shift or twitch became evident.

This is evident with many players as far as changes over time and usually not for the better, but the point remains the same when describing original method and aproach and in the case of mosconi, it was parallel and I have no idea if it morphed to fractional over time or vice versa. But parallel is never mentioned by him though as far as I know and that's because of the paranoia I described earlier and I guess that's where the argument can start, but why would he say he hit it too good in the miss atempt when you can clearly see he shot it parallel and then couple it with hear say of intimate knowledge of players in the know?

Obviously I can't prove it beyond a doubt, but we all know that players can and are secretive about things.

Enjoy.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It is really sad to read all of these close minded comments. I read one thread on these forums and think it is a great, supportive place, and then read the next one and it reads like no one has any sense or respect for anyone else.
Some people see angles better than fractions. Some people see distances better than ghost balls. For any of you to say one system is "better" dumbfounds me. It is better for YOU. That is it. Whether you are seeing a distance off the ball, imagining a ghost ball, or lining up the edges of the ball, you are ALL needing to maintain exactly the same accuracy as the other because you're shooting at the same target (the pocket.) That location might be measured in fractions, decimals, angles, or millimeters, but it is held to the same tolerance if you want to make your shot.

As for BC21's statement that he doesn't always use Poology, that makes complete sense. If you use any system long enough, or just shoot pool long enough, you automatically see your aim point on some shots. That's all BC21 is saying... he doesn't have to go through the steps when he is in the groove, because he just knows it. All good players do this, and excellent players probably do this the majority of the time. BC21 isn't saying uses a different system when he needs to use a system, he is saying sometimes he just knows where to shoot (due to using a system that works for him for thousands and thousands of shots.

What system is that? Can you explain it in detail since he can't?

Most new members make their first post in either the Main Forum or "Introduce Yourself".

Not you. You came straight here to the aiming forum and this thread. Your second paragraph sounds like you know Brian pretty darn well since you're speaking for him and what he means in every sentence. How do you know what he thinks or is saying?

Do you use Poolology? What do you visualize after a 1/2 ball hit for the 60 degrees remaining after it? Got a video where you can explain what you're seeing and how you get there to pocket the balls? I'd love to hear you rattle off those angles accurately for each shot.

 

[Low500]

----------------

 

[BC21]

I'd like to see some new and improved players proving it on the table with a bunch of videos as they explain the math and shot choices along with how they visualize the other 60 degree cut angles after the edge of the OB runs out.

Lol. I'd like to see you remain on topic w without resorting to trolling or non-contributing comments.

And the story, my story, has never changed. I've ALWAYS stated that I use my system when needed, and that it serves as a great tool for getting me back in tune when I need it.

And it's really not difficult to accurately aim at a specific point on the OB or within an inch away from the OB edge. It's one straight line from directly behind the cb. No need to argue the simplicity or accuracy of that. You can keep on using your two lines as seen not straight on but peripherally, then getting your ccb perspective, then sweeping or pivoting from an offset to the final ccb. If that's simple and accurate for you, then fine. No need to keep trolling for the sake of continuing your 20yr aiming war. It doesn't involve me.

 

[BC21]

Most new members make their first post in either the Main Forum or "Introduce Yourself".

Not you. You came straight here to the aiming forum and this thread. Your second paragraph sounds like you know Brian pretty darn well since you're speaking for him and what he means in every sentence. How do you know what he thinks or is saying?

Do you use Poolology? What do you visualize after a 1/2 ball hit for the 60 degrees remaining after it? Got a video where you can explain what you're seeing and how you get there to pocket the balls? I'd love to hear you rattle off those angles accurately for each shot.

I think stephenw00d posted a logical response. I don't think he knows me, but that never stops you, Mr Spider, of mispresenting my words as if you know me, as if you know my true meaning regardless of what I type. Lol. Here's a clue...... I mean exactly what I write. :smile:

 

[BC21]

Oh, I guess I'm able to pocket one every now and then with those little ole' two lines, probably just from luck or accident.
Of course I'm not the smartest guy in the pool room like you..the one everyone comes to for wise counsel on everything from pool instructions to repairing cars to playing the drums to playing the guitar to amassing book libraries to authoring books to playing music gigs and even inventing pool shooting methods.<===WHAT A GUY!!
I suppose I'm just stuck with people referring to me as old "Harmless...who can't make a ball".<===poor, pitiful, me.:crying:
Byeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Well, I'm a firm believer in helping people, in always doing the right thing, in treating people with common courtesy and respect. That's good character. This little post of yours is a fine example of your character.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Lol. I'd like to see you remain on topic w without resorting to trolling or non-contributing comments.

Cut the trolling claim. I want to know how this works as well as what your chosen system is. YOU can contribute by explaining it. I can't.

And the story, my story, has never changed. I've ALWAYS stated that I use my system when needed, and that it serves as a great tool for getting me back in tune when I need it.

Not very frequently.

And it's really not difficult to accurately aim at a specific point on the OB or within an inch away from the OB edge. It's one straight line from directly behind the cb. No need to argue the simplicity or accuracy of that. You can keep on using your two lines as seen not straight on but peripherally, then getting your ccb perspective, then sweeping or pivoting from an offset to the final ccb. If that's simple and accurate for you, then fine. No need to keep trolling for the sake of continuing your 20yr aiming war. It doesn't involve me.

No trolling, just question that you seem unable to answer or are half baked.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think stephenw00d posted a logical response.

Of course you do.

I don't think he knows me,

He spoke more about you and what you think than the Press Secretary does for Trump.

but that never stops you, Mr Spider, of mispresenting my words as if you know me,

How could I know you when you don't quite know yourself?

as if you know my true meaning regardless of what I type. Lol. Here's a clue...... I mean exactly what I write. :smile:

It's extremely hard to decipher whether you type or write it.

 

[BC21]

I am not going to get caught up in your web, Spider. This thread is about training for aiming accuracy. Anyone can go back and read the comments, and what they'll find are some good posts, great tips for improving their game. And then, as usual, you come along trying to steer the thread into your own derogatory world. Or low 500 creeps in and starts with all you have to do is use the "0-15-30-45 angles" and it's easy. Lol. I'm not going there. It gets old.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I am not going to get caught up in your web, Spider. This thread is about training for aiming accuracy. Anyone can go back and read the comments, and what they'll find are some good posts, great tips for improving their game. And then, as usual, you come along trying to steer the thread into your own derogatory world. I'm not going there. It gets old.

That was not my attempt at all. But it is a great back peddle on your part for not giving the answers to the questions I asked. Blame me.

But I do like the way you phrased it because it definitely fits what you and a few others in the gang did here on a constant basis with CTE and Stan.

I guess your "quest for knowledge" was OK but mine isn't.

You do know you keep posting to this yourself for a continuation, don't you? Lets see if you do it again and then blame me.

 

[stevenw00d]

Most new members make their first post in either the Main Forum or "Introduce Yourself".

Not you. You came straight here to the aiming forum and this thread. Your second paragraph sounds like you know Brian pretty darn well since you're speaking for him and what he means in every sentence. How do you know what he thinks or is saying?

Do you use Poolology? What do you visualize after a 1/2 ball hit for the 60 degrees remaining after it? Got a video where you can explain what you're seeing and how you get there to pocket the balls? I'd love to hear you rattle off those angles accurately for each shot.

I don't know a single person on this forum. If you read BC21's post with no bias, it is perfectly clear what he is saying. Anyone who comes to this forum, and reads this post as one of their first, will think the same thing.

I like to feel out a forum and figure out if it is worth my time to introduce myself and stick around. I posted in this thread to point out how much these types of threads hurt AZBilliards. You are literally arguing over whether it is better to carry (4) quarters or a $1 bill in your pocket. The idea of all aiming systems is the same. The only difference is how to get there and which one works better for each person. Are all aiming systems as accurate, I don't know yet. But for 99% of the shots on the table it won't make any difference, and no one that isn't great at pool is going to shoot accurate enough to exceed the accuracy of the system.

To answer your question, I don't use any of these systems and have just found out about them. I'm starting to research them now (which is why I'm in this post.) That is why I didn't post any preference to one version or the other and never said anything was right/wrong, except for the attitudes and attacks. I see angles well (I'm a mechanical designer by trade), so I'll probably lean in that direction when looking for a system, but that is neither here nor there.

My post wasn't an attack on any one post in this thread, it was the culmination of a large number of them that gives such a bad taste.

 

[ballbanger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenw00d View Post
It is really sad to read all of these close minded comments. I read one thread on these forums and think it is a great, supportive place, and then read the next one and it reads like no one has any sense or respect for anyone else.
Some people see angles better than fractions. Some people see distances better than ghost balls. For any of you to say one system is "better" dumbfounds me. It is better for YOU. That is it. Whether you are seeing a distance off the ball, imagining a ghost ball, or lining up the edges of the ball, you are ALL needing to maintain exactly the same accuracy as the other because you're shooting at the same target (the pocket.) That location might be measured in fractions, decimals, angles, or millimeters, but it is held to the same tolerance if you want to make your shot.

As for BC21's statement that he doesn't always use Poology, that makes complete sense. If you use any system long enough, or just shoot pool long enough, you automatically see your aim point on some shots. That's all BC21 is saying... he doesn't have to go through the steps when he is in the groove, because he just knows it. All good players do this, and excellent players probably do this the majority of the time. BC21 isn't saying uses a different system when he needs to use a system, he is saying sometimes he just knows where to shoot (due to using a system that works for him for thousands and thousands of shots.


Not you. You came straight here to the aiming forum and this thread. Your second paragraph sounds like you know Brian pretty darn well since you're speaking for him and what he means in every sentence. How do you know what he thinks or is saying?



Probably reads it the same way a lot (then again i'm speaking for everyone wink wink) of us read his posts you seem to really try and read deep into it. Plus this is the 2nd peep that you went after that was new and posting whats up with that. Cant we just keep it civil.:smile:

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I don't know a single person on this forum. If you read BC21's post with no bias, it is perfectly clear what he is saying. Anyone who comes to this forum, and reads this post as one of their first, will think the same thing.

I like to feel out a forum and figure out if it is worth my time to introduce myself and stick around. I posted in this thread to point out how much these types of threads hurt AZBilliards. You are literally arguing over whether it is better to carry (4) quarters or a $1 bill in your pocket. The idea of all aiming systems is the same. The only difference is how to get there and which one works better for each person. Are all aiming systems as accurate, I don't know yet. But for 99% of the shots on the table it won't make any difference, and no one that isn't great at pool is going to shoot accurate enough to exceed the accuracy of the system.

To answer your question, I don't use any of these systems and have just found out about them. I'm starting to research them now (which is why I'm in this post.) That is why I didn't post any preference to one version or the other and never said anything was right/wrong, except for the attitudes and attacks.

Don't sweat it. We're all big boys and have been at this a long time. We can take care of ourselves.

I see angles well (I'm a mechanical designer by trade), so I'll probably lean in that direction when looking for a system, but that is neither here nor there.

Here's a suggestion. Go with Poolology. Seriously.

My post wasn't an attack on any one post in this thread, it was the culmination of a large number of them that gives such a bad taste.

Take two Rolaids and some Milk of Magnesia. The taste will go away. I'm

Good for you. Then go into the thread I started and read about that aiming system and how positive it was and I was. Otherwise, AZ has been doing just fine for the last 14 years and hasn't been hurt by too much.

I would hope I get kudos from you about the thread but some how I'm thinking it's not going to happen.

Just what we need a new sheriff in town. Self appointed. Read my thread and learn even though it isn't about angles or math. I'm starting to get a bad taste myself from your posts. Where are those Rolaids?

 

[lfigueroa]

I don't know a single person on this forum. If you read BC21's post with no bias, it is perfectly clear what he is saying. Anyone who comes to this forum, and reads this post as one of their first, will think the same thing.

I like to feel out a forum and figure out if it is worth my time to introduce myself and stick around. I posted in this thread to point out how much these types of threads hurt AZBilliards. You are literally arguing over whether it is better to carry (4) quarters or a $1 bill in your pocket. The idea of all aiming systems is the same. The only difference is how to get there and which one works better for each person. Are all aiming systems as accurate, I don't know yet. But for 99% of the shots on the table it won't make any difference, and no one that isn't great at pool is going to shoot accurate enough to exceed the accuracy of the system.

To answer your question, I don't use any of these systems and have just found out about them. I'm starting to research them now (which is why I'm in this post.) That is why I didn't post any preference to one version or the other and never said anything was right/wrong, except for the attitudes and attacks. I see angles well (I'm a mechanical designer by trade), so I'll probably lean in that direction when looking for a system, but that is neither here nor there.

My post wasn't an attack on any one post in this thread, it was the culmination of a large number of them that gives such a bad taste.

Stick around a while longer, but without putting certain guys on Ignore, you'll need a bucket of Listerine for that "bad taste." I've had one guy in particular on Ignore for years. It's the only way to read this forum with a semblance of sanity.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Stick around a while longer, but without putting certain guys on Ignore, you'll need a bucket of Listerine for that "bad taste." I've had one guy in particular on Ignore for years. It's the only way to read this forum with a semblance of sanity.

Lou Figueroa

I don't have anybody on ignore, but there's one guy in particular I'd like to buy a carton of KAOPECTATE for as a gift. He's had diarrhea of the mouth about aiming systems for the last 20 years.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Plus this is the 2nd peep that you went after that was new and posting whats up with that. Cant we just keep it civil.:smile:

FYI, there happens to be a NEW peep that posted for the first time in my thread who was extremely interested in the technique and wants to learn more.

Those are the guys I have respect for and go out of my way to help any way I can.

In his case that's exactly what we're doing behind the scene by way of PM. I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to know about that but now you do.

I've done this many times over by way of PM or live when we had a chance to link up at the SBE or elsewhere.

Btw, who have you helped lately? Did I miss some of your posts of wisdom or are you also working with others behind the scene? If I missed a valuable post of yours, my error. Copy and paste the post or the link with it. I'm interested.