Mosconi on aiming .

[lfigueroa]

And, if you think that everyone that endorses something is lying about using it, you live in la-la land. Just curious now, after your statements here..... since you are so skeptical about everyone, how is it that you believe what McGoorty put in his book? Don't you think he just might have embellished it to make it a decent read and so he could sell some copies? Why believe the author of any book for that matter? After all, they do have an agenda to sell copies. And saying "I travelled 200 miles to get to that action spot I heard of, and I sat there for 2 weeks and never saw a dime pass hands." Yeah, that would be a real exciting read.

You trying to discredit any system by saying what you have, just doesn't wash. You are painting with too big a brush, just to try and make a point. All you are doing is showing that you are out of ammo to continue an honest debate on the subject.

I'm not saying that. But no one should get an automatic pass on the credibility issue either. And that's the thing about aiming systems, isn't it? It's not like a pro playing with a particular cue that everyone can see them actually using (never mind that it has been modified to his personal specs and resembles nothing the consumer is ever going to get). For all we know a player can tell us he's using a particular aiming system, when in actuality he's seeing the Sugar Plum Fairy pointing on each shot where to hit it.

Lou Figueroa
SPF System :-o

 

[lfigueroa]

Everyone has fans and detractors Lou. No matter how you think you are perceived there are always those who can't stand you and those who love you.

And while I certainly believe that you never deliberately lied I am fully confident that you sometimes did not answer all questions put to you with full disclosure either. My point was that your job was to put the right type of spin on the answers to be credible (and truthful) while only revealing that which the government wanted the people to know and not necessarily what the "people" asked you to reveal.

You are a very clever writer and your writing here shows that you clearly know how to spin any topic in the direction you think it should go. Only thing is that other people are clever as well and spin it back in the direction they think it should go.

For example your somewhat snide "doomed to failure" comment. What is the purpose of that? You can't prove it, many people have come on here and testified that they successfully uses aiming systems and certainly are not failing. So why bother with nonsense like that if not to simply be negative for negativity's sake?

John trust me, you don't need to tell me about fans and detractors. As someone who has been in the communication business and has studied and taught this, I already know that if Jesus Christ, or the Dali Lama if you prefer, were to run for President (I know, I know -- there would be birth certificate issues) right from the getgo they would poll at least 30% negative. That's just the way it is -- there is always the 30%.

As to full disclosure, you are wrong again. (I actually used to travel around the country and teach CEO level guys this kind of stuff, so I can go all day on it if you want.) You don't lie and if you can't tell someone something you tell them why: I don't know (but will find out); it's classified; telling you would potentially put troops in harms way. It's really pretty simple.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Which is an example of speaking from the position of knowledge and experience trumps the position of speculation and ignorance.

So why do you constantly harass those with the most experience and knowledge on these aiming topics when you yourself have openly admitted that you don't even bother with them?

The only you have tried as far as I know is the Pro One which I would bet you didn't even give an hour of table time to. For ten years you have been knocking them and their supporters.

In this scenario Lou you are acting like the the Congressman. In my opinion.

I know more about pool than that congressman ever knew about the Air Force

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I never said that they all flat out sucked.
But if someone is going to talk about people who are doomed to failure, it's safe to say that we aren't talking about elite players who obviously, get past all that.It has absolutely nothing to do with people that play good with systems. And you do? You are the authority on all statistics about aiming? Please...

Seriously? I've been around pool a long time. There are tons of people who use all sorts of systems. Please show me where i claim that i know how many people have or have not benefited from them? Show me where i make that claim.

And just how am i degrading them? How is pointing out that there are also people who use systems, who do NOT benefit from them, degrading? Unless you never get out to the pool hall, there are people who learn systems to help their game, who basically become "trapped" by those systems. Never venturing out from system parameters, never trusting their own instincts. People who are SO dependent on systems, that they effectively stunt their pool growth. How is pointing that out degrading, especially when it's true?
Did i happen to say that ALL system users fall into this category? No, i didn't.
Did i say that bangers should never ever use systems to learn? No, i didn't.
And for the umpteenth time, i have tried out several systems. To someone that already plays the game, there is nothing especially spectacular about any that i tried. There was no "OMG, THIS IS AMAZING!!!" moment. There was no aiming epiphany. Some work ok, some are MEH, but seriously, none was the be all to end all of aiming. At least to me. But that is MY opinion.
As such, i will criticize systems however i wish.

But if you look closely, you will see that the only thing i have knocked in this thread, is the "lights reflected" system, cause lets face it, that's just a big load a crap right there and deserves to be made fun of.
If mentioning that aiming at the spot on the ball that takes the object ball to the hole is genius, that's cause it's the way i play. Does that constitute knocking?
Please show me where i blatantly knocked a system in this thread aside from reflected lights.

I have pointed out that people like to cherry pick and automatically refer to their go to guys, that use systems and play well. As if that is somehow a testament to the systems validity or some form of a guarantee, when they NEVER mention all the "bangers" as you put it, that try out systems and practice for years and years, who never benefit from them whatsoever. No, those players never get mentioned cause they are of no use.

Don't see why it has to be so complicated.
For every person that benefits from a system, there are people who don't and never will. That's the point. That's not knocking any system or the people that have been helped by one, but it IS the truth.

Some people will play superb pool with systems, some will manage to do it alone with just instinct, and yet others, no matter how long they try, systems or not, will never get it, regardless of how many times you show them or explain it to them. They will never progress. They will never ever play this game well.

Holey Moley! What a great response, SS.

I think if we just take your response here and use it in perpetuity it would automatically answer 95% of John's posts and we could all take the day off

Lou Figueroa
that 5% is assuming
he'll want to post about
a case for sale
once in a while

 

[Roger Long]

Seriously, u can't use Mosconi and Misleading in the same sentence. The way he words himself might be misleading...... go do 525, then say what u want.

And why can't I use "Mosconi" and "misleading" in the same sentence? He clearly missed a shot because he aimed it to miss, and then told viewers that he missed it because it was thrown off by the "english" he put on the cue ball. Throw that is induced by the use of english does not alter a shot nearly as much as what Willie demonstrated in that video.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm a big Willie Mosconi fan, and always have been. I don't think there is anything ethically wrong with the way he demonstrated the shot; it was just technically wrong, and that might mislead someone on the actual effects of SIT.

Please forgive me for offending you with my post.

Roger

 

[cookie man]

I'm not saying that. But no one should get an automatic pass on the credibility issue either. And that's the thing about aiming systems, isn't it? It's not like a pro playing with a particular cue that everyone can see them actually using (never mind that it has been modified to his personal specs and resembles nothing the consumer is ever going to get). For all we know a player can tell us he's using a particular aiming system, when in actuality he's seeing the Sugar Plum Fairy pointing on each shot where to hit it.

Lou Figueroa
SPF System :-o

Just like the pros who say they don't know how they aim, they just shoot the ball, or was that the sugar plum fairy shooting for them. It goes both ways Lou, you can't honestly say a pro doesn't know how they aim.

 

[JB Cases]

Don't see why it has to be so complicated.
For every person that benefits from a system, there are people who don't and never will. That's the point. That's not knocking any system or the people that have been helped by one, but it IS the truth.

Some people will play superb pool with systems, some will manage to do it alone with just instinct, and yet others, no matter how long they try, systems or not, will never get it, regardless of how many times you show them or explain it to them. They will never progress. They will never ever play this game well.

Exactly, which is why there is no reason for knockers to predict doom and gloom with statements that insist a student is "doomed to failure".

One of the best little scores I ever made was the time I was waiting on a very good player to show up and play some $100 one pocket. Before my opponent showed up another very good one pocket player started knocking me telling me I had no chance and that I should just play him some instead. I told him that when my guy got there he could bet what he wanted on the side. He shut up and didn't want to bet a quarter. Anyway I was so pissed off about this that I ended up playing over my head and Scott for whatever reason didn't play good and so I won four games at $100 a game, lost one, and we jacked it to $300 a game and I won two more and he quit. THEN the knocker started in again and I said well how about we play but since you sat here and clocked me for two hours you tell me what the game is. He gave up 9:6 for $100 a game and I won two games and that was done.

The point of it all is that there is no reason to continue the knock. Let people try and use whatever they want to use. IF they have trapped themselves then that's their problem just like getting in action in the pool room.

All the negative speculation is horseshit. There is no downside to trying any new technique on the pool table unless it's physically dangerous to your person or to the equipment. What do I care and why should you care if someone is doing mental gymnastics before they shoot?

Jimmy Reid taught me a simple double-the-distance method of one rail kicks. It involves using the cue to measure the kicking angle. It's accurate. It's also cumbersome and a little embarrassing to use. I developed another way to do it that isn't as accurate but I don't have to do all the measuring with the cue. As a result my one rail kicks are decent and "look" natural. Still though when it's critical I sometimes use Jimmy's way and get a very accurate angle. The other day I saw a pro use Jimmy's way on the TV table to measure a kick. (I am sure that this as around long before Jimmy but he was the first guy who showed it to me)

What's the point of this? Simply that knowledge is one thing and dependency is another. Jimmy gave me the knowledge but I didn't stay dependent on his exact prescription and developed my own method that works well for me. But without ever getting the chance to learn his method I would certainly have never worked out my modification of it and I am 100% certain that my one rail kicking percentages would be much lower than they are today.

Now of course the kicking system can't be disputed because the geometry works 100% - but the point is that had Jimmy introduced it on the forum in 1995 invariably someone would pipe up and say some thing like "systems are bullshit, put in your time son and you will learn to kick naturally"..........essentially putting in the knock and trying to STOP someone from trying something.

Let's all be clear.

The DEFAULT mode of learning to play pool is trial and error. No instructors, no lessons, no devices, no YouTube, no examples, no systems. Just a pool table, a stick, and balls.

That's it.

Millions of people around the world teach themselves to play with only these three things.

It's pretty easy to see where they end up when you travel to places without "formal" pool being played.

We all know that a little instruction goes a long way. So stop knocking anyone or anything designed to help people get better.

Let people try it in peace and if they get better then great. If don't then no problem. And if they get worse then hopefully they have the presence of mind to drop it.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Exactly, which is why there is no reason for knockers to predict doom and gloom with statements that insist a student is "doomed to failure".
Please go back to post #151 and see if someone is talking about "everyone" being doomed to failure, or just a select few.

One of the best little scores I ever made was the time I was waiting on a very good player to show up and play some $100 one pocket. Before my opponent showed up another very good one pocket player started knocking me telling me I had no chance and that I should just play him some instead. I told him that when my guy got there he could bet what he wanted on the side. He shut up and didn't want to bet a quarter. Anyway I was so pissed off about this that I ended up playing over my head and Scott for whatever reason didn't play good and so I won four games at $100 a game, lost one, and we jacked it to $300 a game and I won two more and he quit. THEN the knocker started in again and I said well how about we play but since you sat here and clocked me for two hours you tell me what the game is. He gave up 9:6 for $100 a game and I won two games and that was done.
Clearly, you are obsessed with knocking. Even when the knocking has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The point of it all is that there is no reason to continue the knock. Let people try and use whatever they want to use. IF they have trapped themselves then that's their problem just like getting in action in the pool room.
Again i ask you to cite where i knocked any system besides light reflection, in this thread.

All the negative speculation is horseshit. There is no downside to trying any new technique on the pool table unless it's physically dangerous to your person or to the equipment. So you advocate someone buying into the light reflection system for pocketing balls and studying it religiously? You think advocating the cueing of the stick between a V of index and middle fingers is good to build ones foundation?
When people come on a forum and always refer to their champion guys as proof that a system works, they for all intensive purposes, are describing the outliers of a particular group, and it has no bearing on if a particular system works better then no system at all.. This goes for any system that might be used.
The top shelf people are special and shouldn't be confused with the everyday average players who are more representative of the center of the bell curve, where the system may or may not have as big of an impact.
The only way to prove a systems merit is by conducting the proper test, which in this instance, is and always will be, impossible.
You get 2 groups of 1000 people all with the same talent, same ability, same brain. You give them exactly the same amount of time on the table, the same fundamentals, and you introduce whatever aiming system to one group only, and you see after a set amount of time, how much better or worse they did vs the control group.
Then and ONLY then, can one cite how a particular system, has any merit to it.
Until such an experiment is done, we will never know.

And on that note, why don't we just pull the whole framework of aiming systems apart?
What if one system sucks, and one is great, but the top shelf guys from each camp play the same speed?
For that to happen, the outliers of the great system, might have less talent but an easier time at pool, because the system is so awesome, where the outliers of the system that sucks, might actually have way more talent, and could be really really awesome, but the crappy system holds them back.
Yes i know. It sounds completely ridiculous. But how can you prove it wrong?

Anyway, true representation of a system isn't about the outliers (top guys), it's about the rest of that systems population, so people need to stop pointing to top guys as proof.

Jimmy Reid taught me a simple double-the-distance method of one rail kicks...
...essentially putting in the knock and trying to STOP someone from trying something.We aren't talking about kicking, we are talking about aiming

We all know that a little instruction goes a long way. So stop knocking anyone or anything designed to help people get better. Again, please cite the knock of whatever system.

Let people try it in peace and if they get better then great. Have i tried to stop them?

Just so we understand each other, i am talking about everyone always pointing to their heroes as proof. I could really care less about systems at this point, and haven't gone about knocking them in this thread.

Until someone puts together a study, all the arguing should really stop cause it serves no purpose until everything can be "proven", which it never will be.

When people are like "IT'S AN AWESOME SYSTEM CAUSE HE USES IT AND HE PLAYS JAM UP!!" It's just silly.

It's like they never took statistics or did a science experiment.

 

[JB Cases]

It's really hard to answer you when you post inside a quote. Just saying that the way the forum works it requires much more effort than simply wrapping the text you want to respond to in quotes like this.

Just so we understand each other, i am talking about everyone always pointing to their heroes as proof. I could really care less about systems at this point, and haven't gone about knocking them in this thread.

So now on to the part of your answer I don't need to copy and paste.

Just so we understand each other, i am talking about everyone always pointing to their heroes as proof. I could really care less about systems at this point, and haven't gone about knocking them in this thread.

Well when you are talking about a method of doing something then it's only natural to point to people who claim to use that method and look at their results. In leather working there are many ways to do things and when there is disagreement people often can point to those who have successfully used said method and dissect them further from there.

The thing is that when these discussions started part of the opposition's platform has always been that "the pros don't use aiming systems". So it's only natural when the aiming system advocates come across pros who openly admit to using them that they would use that.

Until someone puts together a study, all the arguing should really stop cause it serves no purpose until everything can be "proven", which it never will be.

Good luck with that. I agree that there should be a study and I have pleaded with Dr. Dave for example to set one up. He claims not to have the time yet he has the time to participate in every aiming thread and post a zillion links....

When people are like "IT'S AN AWESOME SYSTEM CAUSE HE USES IT AND HE PLAYS JAM UP!!" It's just silly.

Then is it equally silly to say, "It's a bogus system because so and so does NOT use it and he plays jam up"? I would think that this is even MORE silly because absence of use by one person does not invalidate the thing he does not use. But the claimed use of something by someone successful indicates a possible correlation.

It's like they never took statistics or did a science experiment.

Well again this is unlikely to ever get studied by the people who have the education and resources to do the work. So it falls back to anecdotal evidence and circumstantial evidence.

And anecdotal evidence comes mostly from people who try the system in question.

And statistically if you have one "naysayer" who says he tried it and didn't get it against say 10 "yeasayers" and 50 on-the-fencers who tried with some getting it somewhat and others not at all then I'd think out of that small sample one could statistically extrapolate what the results would be if a much larger portion of the pool playing population were to try it.

 

[Snapshot9]

3 Things ...

1) Everyone is not always nice, or even feels like it.
2) If you are going to put it out there, then you have to listen to the echo.
3) You can't cure stupid.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

It's really hard to answer you when you post inside a quote. Just saying that the way the forum works it requires much more effort than simply wrapping the text you want to respond to in quotes like this.

I'll see if i can make it easier for you.

Well when you are talking about a method of doing something then it's only natural to point to people who claim to use that method and look at their results.

Doesn't make it valid.

The thing is that when these discussions started part of the opposition's platform has always been that "the pros don't use aiming systems". So it's only natural when the aiming system advocates come across pros who openly admit to using them that they would use that.

Actually, i don't see it like that. I KNOW some pros use aiming systems. Talked to enough of them to know that
The major arguments i see are when people claim that their aiming systems are EXACT, and the people don't believe them. Then the discussion leads down to the "well, if the aiming system is exact, explain this!" and then someone comes out and admits that there is a human component to the aiming system, cause it's the only way it can make balls otherwise, "but then why call it exact?! haha, the system must not be exact, therefore, the system is bogus." blah blah blah.
Problem is, there are plenty of people who play good pool, even some high end pros, who never actively thought of any aiming system and just play well because they have the talent and sacrificed their time. Lots of people know this.
Plus people also never ever believe pool players. I'm not talking about the whole population, but there is a definite % that will NEVER believe what a pool player says.

"I haven't hit a ball in 3 months!" where even if it is 100% true, there is a group of people that will never believe them. This is a result of the whole hustling phenomena. Where players lie all the time to gain an advantage. This is an engrained part of the pool culture.
I always take whatever some other pool player says, with a grain of salt and regardless, will not believe them 100%.
"I haven't hit a ball in 3 months!" really means they are practicing elsewhere, or secretly have a table at home? With that being said.
Who in their right mind trusts a pool player? We all know pool players sell their soul for a buck. This is common knowledge.
Everyone knows that pool players will cut up everyone around them, every which way, to make some money. Does it really surprise you that people don't trust them, or any claims they make when there is potential endorsements/money involved? Believe me, if someone was going to pay a pro to endorse the dog poop system, they would.
You can't change decades of engrained pool culture overnight.

Good luck with that. I agree that there should be a study and I have pleaded with Dr. Dave for example to set one up. He claims not to have the time yet he has the time to participate in every aiming thread and post a zillion links....

Well, until an aiming study vs a control group happens (never, because not everyone has the same stroke, brain, talent, etc etc) all the arguments should be basically stuck on a shelf. There is no way to prove it otherwise.

Then is it equally silly to say, "It's a bogus system because so and so does NOT use it and he plays jam up"? I would think that this is even MORE silly because absence of use by one person does not invalidate the thing he does not use. But the claimed use of something by someone successful indicates a possible correlation.

Yes, this is silly. Just as silly if not more then the people citing their system heroes, as proof it works. But i don't remember seeing this as much, but then again, i don't follow aiming threads that much cause they get too ridiculous.
It's all just a big turd if you ask me.
When a thread ventures down the path of conspiracy theory and aiming secret societies, where only the pool Illuminati really know what is going on, i know the ridiculousness has gotten out of hand and that it's time to stop reading.
Success could simply be an outlier, and can't be proven either way, without the proper experiment.

Well again this is unlikely to ever get studied by the people who have the education and resources to do the work. So it falls back to anecdotal evidence and circumstantial evidence.
And anecdotal evidence comes mostly from people who try the system in question.

The only way the results would be valid, is if everyone had the same talent, the same fundamentals, the same eyesight, the same stroke, the same brain, so the results would be crystal clear as to what impact a system would have. Otherwise, the experiment is flawed. Period.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter in the least what naysayers and yeasayers believe. But the burden of proof is on the yeasayers to support some of their claims. It's always like that.

Sometimes that never happens or is very difficult.
I mean, personally, i am still wondering about some questions i had.
To date, i have never heard a valid explanation that makes sense scientifically. And i don't care at this point. Whatever explanation someone might give is irrelevant.

I mean, wasn't someone supposed to release a paper explaining everything? What happened to that? Did i miss that, or did it just never happen? I mean, if someone is claiming proof in thesis form, and then it never gets published, that just makes people more skeptical. (if it has been released, please excuse me. If it hasn't, Why?)
Either way, I don't really care anymore as the systems don't have any impact on me personally.
If people want to argue, let them.
I'm just showing that it's a total waste of time.

And statistically if you have one "naysayer" who says he tried it and didn't get it against say 10 "yeasayers" and 50 on-the-fencers who tried with some getting it somewhat and others not at all then I'd think out of that small sample one could statistically extrapolate what the results would be if a much larger portion of the pool playing population were to try it.

I don't think so...
Unless those 61 people are all clones, their opinions are invalid. Too many other variables that they don't realize need to be taken seriously.

Exit...Stage left.

 

[8pack]

Willie talking about aiming from his book.He must of used more then one method for alinement.

I had 3 more files to upload but it wouldnt let me..

 

[Bob Jewett]

Willie talking about aiming from his book.He must of used more then one method for alinement.

I had 3 more files to upload but it wouldnt let me..

So he does not mention collision-induced throw. I think this isn't surprising since the idea didn't really enter into pool until about 1990(?) and hasn't been clearly understood until a few years ago. For an experiment on how draw and follow affect collision-induced throw, see http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006-05.pdf

 

[lfigueroa]

I'll see if i can make it easier for you.


Doesn't make it valid.


Actually, i don't see it like that. I KNOW some pros use aiming systems. Talked to enough of them to know that
The major arguments i see are when people claim that their aiming systems are EXACT, and the people don't believe them. Then the discussion leads down to the "well, if the aiming system is exact, explain this!" and then someone comes out and admits that there is a human component to the aiming system, cause it's the only way it can make balls otherwise, "but then why call it exact?! haha, the system must not be exact, therefore, the system is bogus." blah blah blah.
Problem is, there are plenty of people who play good pool, even some high end pros, who never actively thought of any aiming system and just play well because they have the talent and sacrificed their time. Lots of people know this.
Plus people also never ever believe pool players. I'm not talking about the whole population, but there is a definite % that will NEVER believe what a pool player says.

"I haven't hit a ball in 3 months!" where even if it is 100% true, there is a group of people that will never believe them. This is a result of the whole hustling phenomena. Where players lie all the time to gain an advantage. This is an engrained part of the pool culture.
I always take whatever some other pool player says, with a grain of salt and regardless, will not believe them 100%.
"I haven't hit a ball in 3 months!" really means they are practicing elsewhere, or secretly have a table at home? With that being said.
Who in their right mind trusts a pool player? We all know pool players sell their soul for a buck. This is common knowledge.
Everyone knows that pool players will cut up everyone around them, every which way, to make some money. Does it really surprise you that people don't trust them, or any claims they make when there is potential endorsements/money involved? Believe me, if someone was going to pay a pro to endorse the dog poop system, they would.
You can't change decades of engrained pool culture overnight.


Well, until an aiming study vs a control group happens (never, because not everyone has the same stroke, brain, talent, etc etc) all the arguments should be basically stuck on a shelf. There is no way to prove it otherwise.


Yes, this is silly. Just as silly if not more then the people citing their system heroes, as proof it works. But i don't remember seeing this as much, but then again, i don't follow aiming threads that much cause they get too ridiculous.
It's all just a big turd if you ask me.
When a thread ventures down the path of conspiracy theory and aiming secret societies, where only the pool Illuminati really know what is going on, i know the ridiculousness has gotten out of hand and that it's time to stop reading.
Success could simply be an outlier, and can't be proven either way, without the proper experiment.


The only way the results would be valid, is if everyone had the same talent, the same fundamentals, the same eyesight, the same stroke, the same brain, so the results would be crystal clear as to what impact a system would have. Otherwise, the experiment is flawed. Period.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter in the least what naysayers and yeasayers believe. But the burden of proof is on the yeasayers to support some of their claims. It's always like that.

Sometimes that never happens or is very difficult.
I mean, personally, i am still wondering about some questions i had.
To date, i have never heard a valid explanation that makes sense scientifically. And i don't care at this point. Whatever explanation someone might give is irrelevant.

I mean, wasn't someone supposed to release a paper explaining everything? What happened to that? Did i miss that, or did it just never happen? I mean, if someone is claiming proof in thesis form, and then it never gets published, that just makes people more skeptical. (if it has been released, please excuse me. If it hasn't, Why?)
Either way, I don't really care anymore as the systems don't have any impact on me personally.
If people want to argue, let them.
I'm just showing that it's a total waste of time.



I don't think so...
Unless those 61 people are all clones, their opinions are invalid. Too many other variables that they don't realize need to be taken seriously.

Exit...Stage left.

Another great post.

Pool is all about feel. EVEN those that claim they are using an aiming system without modification are compelled to feeling that they are deploying the system as proscribed. They just can't bring themselves to admit that.

BTW, the opus never came out -- we were all repeatedly told it was on the way: hundreds of pages of "proof." Instead all we got was poof

Lou Figueroa

 

[cookie man]

Another great post.

Pool is all about feel. EVEN those that claim they are using an aiming system without modification are compelled to feeling that they are deploying the system as proscribed. They just can't bring themselves to admit that.

BTW, the opus never came out -- we were all repeatedly told it was on the way: hundreds of pages of "proof." Instead all we got was poof

Lou Figueroa

Sorry Lou, but all you are is poof, we have all the validation we need.

 

[8pack]

So he does not mention collision-induced throw. I think this isn't surprising since the idea didn't really enter into pool until about 1990(?) and hasn't been clearly understood until a few years ago. For an experiment on how draw and follow affect collision-induced throw, see http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006-05.pdf

Bob did the balls from that era play a whole lot different then the balls today.
Was there more cit ..Makes you wonder if they spun the ball more back then if there was.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob did the balls from that era play a whole lot different then the balls today.
Was there more cit ..Makes you wonder if they spun the ball more back then if there was.

In the case of "clay" balls, my feeling is that there is somewhat less throw than with phenolic balls, but that would depend on how they're maintained. I think that Hyatt/Albany phenolics (which includes the original Centennials, I think) are pretty much like Aramiths.

 

[RackemBilliards]

Mosconi

Seriously, u can't use Mosconi and Misleading in the same sentence. The way he words himself might be misleading...... go do 525, then say what u want.

You can't argue with success. Actually, it was 526, by the way:smile: Just moving this baby back to the front in hopes of another 12 pages of weekend entertainment.

 

[KRJ]

hmmm

Another great post.

Pool is all about feel. EVEN those that claim they are using an aiming system without modification are compelled to feeling that they are deploying the system as proscribed. They just can't bring themselves to admit that.

BTW, the opus never came out -- we were all repeatedly told it was on the way: hundreds of pages of "proof." Instead all we got was poof

Lou Figueroa

Is that the "sticking" point in this whole aiming systems with you Lou? The part of aiming "without modification"..... is that the thing that sticks in your craw? I'm being serious, after reading that, it sounds like it is not so much aiming or aiming systems you dismiss, but doing so "without modification" for CIT and other variables? Just wondering after reading your last post.... Please advise... see ya

 

[Luxury]

I wrote this in a different thread and it seemed it fit here:

I think most everyone is using an aiming system(s) to some degree but I believe everyone is making adjustments whether they know or not based on memory of what the correct "shot picture" looks like.

I think those adjustments are more important than the aiming system.

Just my opinion.