Fear of Feel

[ENGLISH!]

Yes, you are totally misunderstanding. And, putting words in my mouth that I never said. Never even said anything close to that. Either you have a serious comprehension problem, or you are doing your best to try grasp at any straw you can to discredit certain statements again. Either way, so much for you previously stating that you really want things to stay civil.

You would serve yourself and the forums much better if you just stopped trying to nitpick each word, and tried to look at the whole picture.

There you go again with your 'omniscience' of misinterpretation or whatever it is.

Also, instead of clarifying you 'attack' me.

Also, if you think your statement I referenced was clear & made good sense, I think you should note that PJ also questioned you to clarify it.

May God Bless You Neil.

 

[Neil]

There you go again with your 'omniscience' of misinterpretation or whatever it is.

Also, instead of clarifying you 'attack' me.

Also, if you think your statement I referenced was clear & made good sense, I think you should note that PJ also questioned you to clarify it.

May God Bless You Neil.

You two aren't fooling anyone on here, Rick. You both are desperately trying to be wordsmiths to "win" some foolish point. If you spent half the time on your game as you do trying to trip someone up so you can say "I win, I win", you would be better off.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...if you are only using objective things (such as 1/4 ball, 1/2 ball, center ball, ect.) as a rough line, then just going by feel from there until the shot just "looks right", you aren't being totally objective anymore.

Doesn't "totally objective" mean without any estimation? "Objective" doesn't mean estimations that you're very good at, and "by feel" doesn't mean estimations that you're not yet very good at. It's not a matter of degree - it's the nature of the thing.

pj
chgo

 

[ronscuba]

Ron,

I hear you regarding real content. However, all we really have to communicate that real content is language.

Like when you say visualization skills. I'm not exactly sure that I 'know' what you mean.

For instance by that, do you mean you have good ability to interpret what you see & it's reality & the ability to not be deceived by optical illusions... or... do you mean that you can close your eyes & visualize say a shot from beginning to end including where to hit the CB so that it makes proper contact to get the OB to go into the pocket & actually visualize it falling onto the pocket?

I hope you see my point. I think we've had a good 'conversation' here.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

Agreed, all we have is language to communicate. I just prefer to focus on the what I believe is the writers intended meaning vs. my definition of the words or terminology.

" you can close your eyes & visualize say a shot from beginning to end including where to hit the CB so that it makes proper contact to get the OB to go into the pocket & actually visualize it falling onto the pocket? "

Yes, this is what I call having good visualization skills. I've also heard it described as having a good "minds eye". When I aim, I visualize the required CB/OB collision. I previously never heard of ghost ball, contact point, fractional overlap, etc.. Now knowing these terms, I use a variation of each one depending on the shot.

 

[336Robin]

Makes sense.

I'm a relatively new lower level player. Rated C+/C in NYC leagues and tournaments. Pocketing balls is my strength. My aim process happens very quickly. Reading people's posts, some would call what I do, feel or subconscious. I don't call it that, but that does not really matter. I don't want to debate definitions. I want to collect information, methods and experiment to see what works best for me.

I've always had good visualization skills, so that part of aiming came natural. Getting my eyes and various body parts into alignment is what made a big improvement.

Ron,
How old are you? If you dont mind me asking?

 

[336Robin]

Thanks Robin,

That sounds interesting. It sort of sounds like you may have combined or morphed intellect & feel together. I like that, as that is sort of how I would classify how I play.

I started at 13 & that was before I learned physics. I'm glad the 'play' came before the intellectual learning, but I'm glad that I have both.

I think I will be getting your book. That is unless my trip to the hall shows me that I don't need it at all & I doubt that that is going to happen.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

PS Best of Luck with the Book. If I really like it, I will certainly recommend it as I have been doing with Gene's Perfect Aim.

Thanks Rick,
I think anyone would enjoy the different perspective and find something they had never considered provides a perfect target and destination. I cant imagine playing any other way it seems so natural.

 

[ronscuba]

Ron,
How old are you? If you dont mind me asking?

I am 50.

Played a lot as a teenager with friends. No organized competition. No internet back then. Never read any books or had any teachers/mentors. I was a good shot maker. No concern about position.

After college didn't play at all until I was 45, when I met my current wife. We joined a co-ed league 3 yrs ago and have been pool addicts ever since. We both work full time, so pool is a hobby. We play on 9 footers and IMHO, level of play in NYC is strong.

 

[Neil]

Doesn't "totally objective" mean without any estimation? "Objective" doesn't mean estimations that you're very good at, and "by feel" doesn't mean estimations that you're not yet very good at. It's not a matter of degree - it's the nature of the thing.

pj
chgo

Well, if you don't think 1/4 ball is an objective aim point, that's your problem. Again, you are just trying to nitpick words to discredit what Stan and others have said. You are above that Pat.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Agreed, all we have is language to communicate. I just prefer to focus on the what I believe is the writers intended meaning vs. my definition of the words or terminology.

" you can close your eyes & visualize say a shot from beginning to end including where to hit the CB so that it makes proper contact to get the OB to go into the pocket & actually visualize it falling onto the pocket? "

Yes, this is what I call having good visualization skills. I've also heard it described as having a good "minds eye". When I aim, I visualize the required CB/OB collision. I previously never heard of ghost ball, contact point, fractional overlap, etc.. Now knowing these terms, I use a variation of each one depending on the shot.

Ron,

Do you realise that the closed eye 'visualization' is really only to put a positive impression into one's mind. It's not real. Your specifics could be way off but in the visualization the ball still goes into the pocket. It's a positive impression vs. a negative or doubtful impression. It's merely a means of building confidence & trying to removing doubt. It's visualise it first & then trying to duplicate in reality what was visualized only in one's mind.

All that as opposed to the ability to actually 'see' visually what actually needs to be done to pocket a ball in reality.

The two are very different. One is unreal & one is real.

Are you using any 'aiming' method at this time or attempting to learn or implement one?

I'm asking because I'm thinking about Robin's book. t may be a good fit for you.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[bbb]

does any one know a good remedy for a headache?????

 

[336Robin]

Vision

I am 50.

Played a lot as a teenager with friends. No organized competition. No internet back then. Never read any books or had any teachers/mentors. I was a good shot maker. No concern about position.

After college didn't play at all until I was 45, when I met my current wife. We joined a co-ed league 3 yrs ago and have been pool addicts ever since. We both work full time, so pool is a hobby. We play on 9 footers and IMHO, level of play in NYC is strong.

From reading your post, as you said you had no problems potting balls I wondered if you were a younger guy. Some of the physical ability to focus leaves you as you age and that can make things interesting to say the least. If you still have good depth perception as you obviously do that is a big plus.

How do you do with position now?

 

[ronscuba]

Ron,

Do you realise that the closed eye 'visualization' is really only to put a positive impression into one's mind. It's not real. Your specifics could be way off but in the visualization the ball still goes into the pocket. It's a positive impression vs. a negative or doubtful impression. It's merely a means of building confidence & trying to removing doubt. It's visualise it first & then trying to duplicate in reality what was visualized only in one's mind.

All that as opposed to the ability to actually 'see' visually what actually needs to be done to pocket a ball in reality.

The two are very different. One is unreal & one is real.

Are you using any 'aiming' method at this time or attempting to learn or implement one?

I'm asking because I'm thinking about Robin's book. t may be a good fit for you.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

I visualize the CB/OB collision required to sink the ball. I works very well for me. I don't close my eyes.

You could say I visualize the required ghost ball position, the required factional overlap, the required contact point to contact point collision. I just see the required collision. I can visually aim, place the CB in the GB position, and it will be correct.

I like to gather information and understand methods. I bought the CTE DVD out of curiosity. I have no reason to change my current aiming method. Call it a variation and combination of GB, fractional overlap, contact point. I pocket balls very well. My misses are due to me manipulating the CB in an attempt to get position for the next shot.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You two aren't fooling anyone on here, Rick. You both are desperately trying to be wordsmiths to "win" some foolish point. If you spent half the time on your game as you do trying to trip someone up so you can say "I win, I win", you would be better off.

More incorrect 'omniscience'.

God Bless You Neil.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
...estimation can be very accurate. Accurate enough to be called objective...

Any adjustments amount to feel...

How do we reconcile these two statements? Are you saying "estimations" and "adjustments" aren't the same?

Neil:
Well, if you don't think 1/4 ball is an objective aim point, that's your problem.

As you know, fractional alignments can only account for a fraction of all shots. Obviously we're talking about all the shots between the fractions here. You say you don't need to estimate those shots, but you haven't said what the objective alignments for them are.

If they're truly objective, shouldn't they be describable in some simple way that everybody can understand, like fractions, ghost ball, etc.? If they have to be learned so "you just know them when you see them", are they really objective, or have you just gotten good at estimating them?

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

More incorrect 'omniscience'.

God Bless You Neil.

Then what are your motives? Are you trying to be a savior to all the hapless pool players out there who might fall for the "marketing hype and claims"?

I'm glad you weren't around to thwart my efforts when Hal first started teaching me and then Stan. I might be playing like you. In case you want to challenge that statement, how about a challenge to you. Match what I did on Colin's potting test and put it on video. The video is up for you to watch. Better yet, use anything you want to use for an aiming system and match your choice of Stan's videos for pure shot making.

If you match it with a video, I'll take you seriously and listen to what you're saying.

(I thought Mike told you to leave religion and God out of your posts, didn't he)

 

[ENGLISH!]

I visualize the CB/OB collision required to sink the ball. I works very well for me. I don't close my eyes.

You could say I visualize the required ghost ball position, the required factional overlap, the required contact point to contact point collision. I just see the required collision. I can visually aim, place the CB in the GB position, and it will be correct.

I like to gather information and understand methods. I bought the CTE DVD out of curiosity. I have no reason to change my current aiming method. Call it a variation and combination of GB, fractional overlap, contact point. I pocket balls very well. My misses are due to me manipulating the CB in an attempt to get position for the next shot.

Ron,

Thanks much for the clarification.

It sounds like you're doing well. What 'changes' if any are you doing to get position? High/Low, side spin, cheating the pocket or combinations there of.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[Neil]

How do we reconcile these two statements? Are you saying "estimations" and "adjustments" aren't the same?



As you know, fractional alignments can only account for a fraction of all shots. Obviously we're talking about all the shots between the fractions here. You say you don't need to estimate those shots, but you haven't said what the objective alignments for them are.

If they're truly objective, shouldn't they be describable in some simple way that everybody can understand, like fractions, ghost ball, etc.? If they have to be learned so "you just know them when you see them", are they really objective, or have you just gotten good at estimating them?

pj
chgo

Estimations and adjustments are not the same, as you very well know already. 1/4 ball is an objective aiming point. Adjusting off that line until the shot looks right is not objective.

No, I haven't stated here what the objective aim lines I use in this thread. That is because I am not talking about just one method of aiming. The methods I use don't require adjustments. You also know very well what systems I prefer to use.

Again, you are just grasping at straws hoping I will maybe slip up in some wording so you can say "ha ha, got you!" Pretty weak attempt, and what is the purpose of it anyways?

If you don't want to call edge to center, edge to 1/4, center to center, edge to 3/4 ball sight lines objective, then that is your shortcoming, not mine or Stan's.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Estimations and adjustments are not the same, as you very well know already.

I don't know that. In fact I disagree. What differences do you think there are?

1/4 ball is an objective aiming point. Adjusting off that line until the shot looks right is not objective.

No, I haven't stated here what the objective aim lines I use in this thread. That is because I am not talking about just one method of aiming. The methods I use don't require adjustments. You also know very well what systems I prefer to use.

OK, pick one and describe the objective way you finalize your aim. Please include the objective "landmarks" that tell you when it's right.

Again, you are just grasping at straws hoping I will maybe slip up in some wording so you can say "ha ha, got you!" Pretty weak attempt, and what is the purpose of it anyways?

I'm trying to find some common terms so we can talk about it intelligently, Neil.

If you don't want to call edge to center, edge to 1/4, center to center, edge to 3/4 ball sight lines objective, then that is your shortcoming, not mine or Stan's.

This is what I mean about our communication problems - I've said clearly that I'm talking about aiming the shots between fractional alignments (which, by the way, are the vast majority of shots).

If we can't get this simple thing straight between us, then we clearly can't communicate.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

I don't know that. In fact I disagree. What differences do you think there are?


OK, pick one and describe the objective way you finalize your aim. Please include the objective "landmarks" you use to do that.


I'm trying to find some common terms so we can talk about it intelligently, Neil.


This is what I mean about our communication problems - I've said clearly that I'm talking about aiming the shots between fractional alignments (which, by the way, are the vast majority of shots).

If we can't get this simple thing straight between us, then we clearly can't communicate.

pj
chgo

Pat, now you are just going in circles. Read your first part of this post, then read your last part. And, no, I'm not going to take the time to rehash exactly how I aim and each step I go through.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, now you are just going in circles. Read your first part of this post, then read your last part. And, no, I'm not going to take the time to rehash exactly how I aim and each step I go through.

OK Neil, guess we just don't speak the same language about this stuff. Thanks for trying.

But for the record, you didn't answer the specific question (again). Here it is again, with some more detail so there's no miscommunication:

Pick any of your methods or systems (you don't have to name it) and describe the objective way you finalize your aim, including the objective "landmarks" you use to do that (not the fractional alignments that got you in the ballpark).

pj
chgo