My theory is aiming means nothing...

Who is right?

Bob Jewett said:
Well, except for the fact that the contact point changes according to the spin on the cue ball, and even if the cue ball has no sidespin, draw/stun/follow will change the contact point.
Click to expand...
I have the Zero-X DVD's.
The man teaching says the contact point is the same whether you use draw, stun, or follow.
You say it changes.
Who is right.....you or him?
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
The truth is, the majority of bad players have no chance in hell of improving, until they make massive improvement in their technique and psr. Not only that, but you can tell they're thinking the shot through while over the ball. That's a recipe for disaster. Teaching such a player an aiming system, MAY help, in that at least he or she is doing the same things before the shots (pivoting, finding contact points or whatever) and that may quiet the non-stop buzz inside their skulls. The improvement will probably be miniscule, compared to what could be achieved with focused practise on the correct things, especially repeatable technique and certainly won't get him or her to the next level.

The worst thing about this, is that until the technique is fixed, minute aiming improvements can't be recognized as improvements and the player will not persist in his practise.

Here is what bad players do (and refuse to fix, because it means work):
1. They move during the shot ("Oh but I only move after the ball is gone":rolleyes:)
2. They flop their cue tip all over the place and don't hit the intended spot on the cueball.
3. They jerk their stroke (which contribute to point 2)
4. They have awkward stances and bad bridge hands
5. They don't follow through in a predictable and consistent way.
6. Their strokes are really terrible due in part to incorrect wrist and hand positions and obviously stance issues.
7. They step in very inconsistently, if they do it at all. Most just slide in sideways in some fashion.


If you "confront" bad players about any of these things they will always come up with some excuse as to why they are doing these things. It's pointless and a waste of time. The players in most dire need of coaching will either not take it or refuse to listen to anything they're told. The people who do listen, don't stay bad players for long.
 
Low500 said:
I have the Zero-X DVD's.
The man teaching says the contact point is the same whether you use draw, stun, or follow.
You say it changes.
Who is right.....you or him?
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has used spin to "throw" a ball in because of an impeding opponent ball knows that Bob is correct. With spin you can hit a cut shot so thick (using outside spin) that you think you would miss but you can easily make it because the spin cuts the ball much sharper than the actual contact point dictates.
 
dr_dave said:
Obviously, Bob is correct (as always).
Cut-induced throw (CIT) is different for stun vs. draw and follow, so you need to aim slightly differently.
For more info, and demonstrations, see:
online tutorial covering throw basics
how throw varies with draw and follow
Enjoy,
Dave
Click to expand...
No, that isn't obvious at all.
The man in the video says the contact point remains the same.
In fact, no less a person than Willie Mosconi says the same thing in his video about aiming and sighting the shot on YouTube. "there is only one spot on the object ball that you must hit to pocket the ball"
 
Last edited:
Low500 said:
No, that isn't obvious at all.
The man in the video says the contact point remains the same.
In fact, no less a person than Willie Mosconi says the same thing in his video about aiming and sighting the shot on YouTube. "there is only one spot on the object ball that you must hit to pocket the ball"
Click to expand...

Well, it ought to be obvious. Anyone who knows the two balls frozen together on the rail "spit" trick shot knows that collision-induced throw is a thing.

Lots of pro level players have absolutely no clue about how the actual physics of the game work, and adjust their aim automatically based on required cut angle and spin.

I think I'd trust the guys with high-speed video cameras over the opinion of any player.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
Well, it ought to be obvious. Anyone who knows the two balls frozen together on the rail "spit" trick shot knows that collision-induced throw is a thing.
Lots of pro level players have absolutely no clue about how the actual physics of the game work, and adjust their aim automatically based on required cut angle and spin.
I think I'd trust the guys with high-speed video cameras over the opinion of any player.
Click to expand...
Throw, CIT or otherwise have to do with AIMING.
The contact point on the object ball still remains the same....no matter what you have to do to hit it.
That's what Willie Mosconi is teaching in his video on YouTube. He played pretty good.
 
Low500 said:
No, that isn't obvious at all.
The man in the video says the contact point remains the same.
In fact, no less a person than Willie Mosconi says the same thing in his video about aiming and sighting the shot on YouTube. "there is only one spot on the object ball that you must hit to pocket the ball"
Click to expand...

Well they're wrong. In fact, Willie demonstrates this very phenomenon himself in his instructional video, when he accidentally throws a ball out of the pocket. Goes to show that even the greatest players are not always aware of what they are doing on a conscious level.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Well they're wrong. In fact, Willie demonstrates this very phenomenon himself in his instructional video, when he accidentally throws a ball out of the pocket. Goes to show that even the greatest players are not always aware of what they are doing on a conscious level.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, that's not what it shows at all.
He just hit the ball in the wrong place. The contact point remained constant.
 
Low500 said:
In my opinion, that's not what it shows at all.
He just hit the ball in the wrong place. The contact point remained constant.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what he did in the video, throwing the ball in is a real phenomenon and can be easily demonstrated. It's used all the time in straight pool where you are maneuvering in tight quarters. You can place blocker balls in positions which will make it obvious that the pocketing is NOT due to curving of the cueball. Try it yourself.

People who fail to do this, usually are playing shots at the wrong speed (too fast) or with the wrong amount of english. You have to experiment with it.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Regardless of what he did in the video, throwing the ball in is a real phenomenon and can be easily demonstrated. It's used all the time in straight pool where you are maneuvering in tight quarters. You can place blocker balls in positions which will make it obvious that the pocketing is NOT due to curving of the cueball. Try it yourself.
People who fail to do this, usually are playing shots at the wrong speed (too fast) or with the wrong amount of english. You have to experiment with it.
Click to expand...
Anybody who has played a while (even a lamer like me) knows all that.
The contact point is still the same on that object ball....now how you get there with the cueball and what you have to allow for, or consider, to hit it and drop the shot is another story entirely.
 
Low500 said:
Anybody who has played a while (even a lamer like me) knows all that.
The contact point is still the same on that object ball....now how you get there with the cueball and what you have to allow for, or consider, to hit it and drop the shot is another story entirely.
Click to expand...

What?! NO! How can the contact point be the same? The (theoretical) contact point can be made impossible to hit with the cueball (covered by a piece of the object ball), yet the ball can still be made! The point Willie refers to (the point furthest away from the pocket only works straight in and for angled shots, with certain speeds and spins. It can be made NOT to work in a situation where the cueball has no time to curve or change course (1mm away) with certain spins.
 
Last edited:
iusedtoberich said:
Here is my theory...

If you knew EXACTLY where to hit to make a shot, for every shot, you would not play any better than your current level. My contention is that there is SO MUCH to this game, that the theoretical aiming point, line, ball, whatever, is an almost insignificant portion of your overall performance as a player.

How can we prove (or disprove) this theory?

1. Place one of Joe Tuckers ghost ball training aids
aimingstickers.jpg
under every single ball in a rack of 9 ball. This will tell you the perfect "ghost ball" location for each ball.

2. See if you can run the rack.
3. Repeat 50 racks, keeping score of how many balls you ran each rack.
4. Repeat 50 more racks, without the aid, and keep score.
5. Compare your results.
Click to expand...

Those are just the ingredients, you still have to bake the shot/cake.

What happens in the oven depends on heat, elevation and humidity and a number of other physical variables.

Try making a cake w out knowing the ingredients.
 
Completely agree with you.

Mastering the aiming for all kinds of shots can be done through loads of time on the table where more shots become familiar the more you pot them.

However if delivering the cue properly isn’t perfected, it’ll always be a player’s Achilles’ heel that limits fulfilling full potential.

Ratta said:
Not to get too far away from topic.
The highest amount of players are just workin on the wrong part of the game- and this was, is and will always be to be able to deliver your cue to the point you want. Withou a straight and repeatable stroke you can use every system in the universe, but without success.
And for sure this is the hardest part^^ to get knowledge just takes a bit time- but to burn in your mechanical abilities takes by far the most time-and many players are just not hard enough to themselves to work on it- instead of this they re more looking for excuses :)

Open your mind, work on your basics and ALL becomes soooo much easier.
First and biggest step: No excuses anymore :)

Sorry for getting a bit off-topic,

lg
Ingo
Click to expand...
 
Low500 said:
Throw, CIT or otherwise have to do with AIMING.
The contact point on the object ball still remains the same....no matter what you have to do to hit it.
That's what Willie Mosconi is teaching in his video on YouTube. He played pretty good.
Click to expand...

I predict many hours of pain followed by an epiphany.
 
BasementDweller said:
It's clear that not only does Low500 not understand collision induced throw but he also doesn't want to understand it.
Click to expand...
No, that is not 'clear'.
Please don't deflect from the original topic with a bunch of stuff about throw.
The man in the Zero-X video (someone said his name is Tor Lowery) said the contact point was the same on the object ball whether you used high, stun, or draw.(no sidespin)
The man on here, Mr. Jewett, says the contact point changes.
Willie Mosconi said there is only one contact point on the object ball. (He's the one everyone holds up as the greatest ever...was he an idiot for saying that?)
This straightpool_69 fella makes a good example with his thing about throwing the object ball into the pocket when it is partially obscured by another ball. I guess in that situation the contact point is different.
Somebody is wrong.
Is it Tor Lowery?
Is it Willie Mosconi?
or is it Mr. Jewett?
That's ALL the question is about...not 'how much Low500 understands about throw'.
 
BasementDweller said:
Well since the question has already been answered several times I'd say you are choosing to not hear the answer.
Click to expand...
No, the question has not been answered several times.
Who is wrong...
Tor Lowery
or Willie Mosconi
or Mr. Jewett.
Very simple question.
 
Last edited:
Low500 said:
Somebody is wrong.
Is it Tor Lowery?
Is it Willie Mosconi?
or is it Mr. Jewett?
That's ALL the question is about...not 'how much Low500 understands about throw'.
Click to expand...

You're being intentionally dense.

My money is on the guy with the high speed camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top