Yep, including your continued inability to understand it.
Maybe, instead of just ignoring and denying all the explanations, you should try to actually read and understand one.
Credit for staying polite, though.
pj
chgo
Yankee Doodles on the Promenade. Not a players’ room (there were plenty others in the 90s), but it was closest to me and the owner’s daughter was a friend of Vivian Villarreal, so I got to play with her whenever she came through.
pj
chgo
Then it just needs to be pointed out (and has been a couple times) that the CB “contact point” defined by your method can’t possibly be the actual contact point - parallel aiming illustrates why.
pj
chgo
A room I used to frequent in Santa Monica had a “tradition” of players unscrewing their cues and using just their shafts for jumping (with a dart stroke). I could see why the 40” rule is in place - jumping’s too easy with such a light “cue”.
pj
chgo
My corrections are for readers who may not know yet how parallel aiming really works - to help them recognize misinformation. Your lack of knowledge makes it necessary (again), but it’s not aimed at you.
pj
chgo
That’s correct - they may be close enough on some straighter shots to subconsciously adjust for, but it’s not the way “parallel lines” aiming really works.
pj
chgo
That’s the correct method - It’s called “parallel lines” aiming for a reason. Mensabum’s inaccurate interpretation of the well known aiming method has been corrected here before.
The different CB contact points defined by the slightly different methods are often close enough together...
Not me - Mike’s a good guess.
My two cents: (moving the) “backhand” is for shafts with their pivot point nearer the bridge hand; (moving the) “fronthand” is for shafts with their pivot point nearer the grip hand. Neither method works for all shots without user input (slight adjustments).
pj
chgo