For a normal rolling cb, no stun, the numbers used in Poolology account for typical throw. Of course, this is subjective based on ball/table conditions. With clean equipment, the aim points provided by the system work very well with a rolling cb. Any spin or stun is to be handled in accordance with learned experience, which is subjective.
I agree that the exact position value of the ob, as well as the rail/alignment values, rely on individual interpretation, not purely objective, but not guesswork either.
So how can a target be determined objectively? I suppose a straight in shot within a couple of feet from a pocket can be determined objectively, meaning 10 out of 10 players can simply look at the shot and know 100% that center ob is the target. Unfortunately, striking the cb correctly to put it on the target is not objective.
Okay, we are more on the same page as I thought that we were.
As for the straight in shot... as seen by whom? We have pocket slop.
As PJ said, Human Vision itself is a subjective thing. My vision has gone through some changes & is probably still in the process of changing. I can place the stick down on the table corner to corner with the CB & an OB straight into a corner pocket. While standing tall & looking at it from above I am left eye dominant & will see it as straight, but if I bend down & look down the length of the stick it will then not look straight & vise versa. If I set it straight while down & then get up & look at it then it will not look straight.
I do not think we as human beings have "objective" vision.
Now that said we "know" that if a shot IS straight & the stick is placed on the line through the centers of the ball & moved on that line to strike the CB in the center so the it hits the center of the OB on that line it will move along that straight line into the center of the pocket. That is Objective KNOWLEDGE. We have similar Objective Knowledge for Cut shots but not so easily described.
I hope you can understand what I have said here.
Also a straight in shot does NOT have CIT to be dealt with regardless of speed. Per your statement about Poolology accounting for throw for a rolling CB, how so? How would the Geometry do that?
Perhaps I am going too deep into this, but I do not see the Natural Laws of Physics being taken into account by a geometric system. Math is what man has devised to try to explain the Natural Laws of Physics.
I will concede that at a rolling ball speed the CIT may not be enough to throw the ball out of the pocket but should certainly throw it off of the center line.
When you spoke, were you referring to Poolology with the arcs or after the straight line conversions?
Thanks Much for the 'conversational' discussion. I am NOT trying to find fault with Poolology. It is just that your statement that it accounts for normal CIT sounds familiar, if you know what I mean.
Best Wishes,
RJ
Last edited: