Why don't we just ban certain troublemakers from the aiming forum? We all know who they are and this forum would be much more productive without the known instigators.
closed threads
- Thread starter cookie man
- Start date
Yea but the same people that wanted us to have our own forum are the same ones coming here instigating arguments.
I don't think all are wanting to argue,it just happens.(its normal...I think):smile:
So was Lou's first comment "normal"?
That seemed to be the start of it, unless I read the thread wrong.
That seemed to be the start of it, unless I read the thread wrong.
Not sure who started what but the thing is ,it's going to happen. I don't think it's right to kill the thread . Maybe banned the person from a certain thread if he gets out of line .
Argument
Well.....Yeah,
Some argument is fairly interesting. We cant shoot each other through the computer. I think when it comes down to name calling and threats that's when to pull the plug. I was right in there and it just didn't seem all that bad to me. It seemed to me that the argument was actually trying to get back to the intention of thread and of course you had the whole cte vs. naysayer bs. I think Joey was trying to get people to think outside the box and beyond what their core beliefs are when it comes to aiming. Which I can admire. Its still kind of interesting that the biggest CTE proponent their is....JB lost that match to Lou and that didn't change a thing. Yeah it is, no it isn't.....lmao...Its never going to be settled...isn't it wonderful?
Well.....Yeah,
Some argument is fairly interesting. We cant shoot each other through the computer. I think when it comes down to name calling and threats that's when to pull the plug. I was right in there and it just didn't seem all that bad to me. It seemed to me that the argument was actually trying to get back to the intention of thread and of course you had the whole cte vs. naysayer bs. I think Joey was trying to get people to think outside the box and beyond what their core beliefs are when it comes to aiming. Which I can admire. Its still kind of interesting that the biggest CTE proponent their is....JB lost that match to Lou and that didn't change a thing. Yeah it is, no it isn't.....lmao...Its never going to be settled...isn't it wonderful?
John primarily lost that match due to his stroke and loss of composure, more the former than the latter. No aiming system works when you aren't hitting the ball where you're aiming. So what did you expect that match to change? Do you think every proponent of SEE, 90/90. fractional, ghost ball, stick, feel, etc. aiming could have beaten Lou in that match? Hopefully, you're able to get that point.
I hope you're not attempting to say that every proponent of anything has to be pro level in order for the system to have validity. Given the difference in One Pocket experience, I'm sure measured in years in favor of Lou, that match should have been a shutout. Barely pulling out a win over JB was hardly a resounding validation for whatever aiming system Lou uses given your logic.
So, how come there are a ton more threads about aiming than PSR, stroking or body alignment ?
I think it's because a lot of people are looking for the magic bullet while they have bad mechanics.
Jerry Breisath is right I think. Most misses are due to hitting the cueball wrong.
I wasnt insinuating anything
Nobcitypool,
I agree with you. As long as aiming is done and delivered by a human there are going to be factors that influence it. Shot making is only part of the game and the rest is experience, especially in One Pocket. Its a great game. Considering the difference in experience you are probably right and that is to JB's credit. I know some of the players he's played here in NC and he's played some good ones, some with spots, some not. Lou must be very good player. I'm sure nerves came into play on both sides.
I would be the last person to suggest that an aiming system would be the fault. Its a game with a user/player and it always falls to him.
Nobcitypool,
I agree with you. As long as aiming is done and delivered by a human there are going to be factors that influence it. Shot making is only part of the game and the rest is experience, especially in One Pocket. Its a great game. Considering the difference in experience you are probably right and that is to JB's credit. I know some of the players he's played here in NC and he's played some good ones, some with spots, some not. Lou must be very good player. I'm sure nerves came into play on both sides.
I would be the last person to suggest that an aiming system would be the fault. Its a game with a user/player and it always falls to him.
Actually, putting JB down (even politely) in that match isn't serving your purpose well. This is an EASY stance to take -- just say, "oh well, JB was outmatched anyway. But-but-but lookie -- he didn't exactly shutout JB!" In other words, downplay your horse *after* the fact, even though you (collective you, not you personally nob) boosted him to the point of being equal or even better prior to the match happening.
Fact is, John came a l-o-n-g way in a short time, for a primarily short-rack rotation player. And he played some great shots / great moves, as well. Towards the middle / latter part of Day 1, John was actually outmoving Lou. IMHO, it's just that John was missing at the wrong time (a crucial point in the table layout), and giving Lou an open shot at his hole.
The reason why Lou won wasn't due to a superior aiming system. Rather, it was much better fundamentals and PSR. Lou made the balls when they counted the most, and capitalized on John's mistakes more than John capitalized on Lou's mistakes.
It actually DOES serve to show the importance of good fundies FIRST and FOREMOST, over any aiming system. You have to have a solid foundation to rely upon, and the aiming (and I know I'm going to catch flack here in the Aiming Conversation forum for saying this) will come naturally. Sure, augment it with a more objective aiming system if you must (e.g. if you don't have good 3D spatial perceptive abilities), but don't use the aiming system as some sort of excuse or replacement for good fundies to begin with. Good fundies lend themselves to good aiming (regardless of the system you use); a good aiming system doesn't necessarily lend itself to good fundies -- even if the aiming system in question includes some sort of head/eye alignment system. You can band-aid wonky fundamentals only for so long, before they catch up with you.
-Sean
If it were me...
I don't think anyone needs to be banned outside of intense personal comments, threats, etc, or complete hijacking of the subject. Baiting and laughing at people who are just way too emotionally involved.... is part of life. Life without some flavor ain't got much in its favor. If you're the one getting laughed at maybe you need to be....live and learn sort of thing. That lets you know to adjust your thinking.
I don't think anyone needs to be banned outside of intense personal comments, threats, etc, or complete hijacking of the subject. Baiting and laughing at people who are just way too emotionally involved.... is part of life. Life without some flavor ain't got much in its favor. If you're the one getting laughed at maybe you need to be....live and learn sort of thing. That lets you know to adjust your thinking.
I think some aiming systems are bad for your fundies.
Start here, move there, then here for the english......:grin-square:
Something snooker players would definitely won't even consider.
Only in pool do we have so many systems.
(e.g. if you don't have good 3D spatial perceptive abilities),
You said a whole lot right there. My contention has always been depth perception. You don't see through the ball and you aren't putting a contact point into the pocket. You are putting a 2 1\4 ball in there. So picking out a wrong contact point is darn easy to do. People with good depth perception and 3 D perceptive abilities surely make good players.
You said a whole lot right there. My contention has always been depth perception. You don't see through the ball and you aren't putting a contact point into the pocket. You are putting a 2 1\4 ball in there. So picking out a wrong contact point is darn easy to do. People with good depth perception and 3 D perceptive abilities surely make good players.
By definition, hitting the CB wrong could include not hitting along the aim line for any number of reasons. But I agree with you overall. It is easier for most to seek out the ultimate aiming tool than spend the hours and hours working on a straight stroke and other fundamentals.
I just made a statement of fact, has nothing to do with it being easy or not. It wasn't meant to put John down in the least, it is what it is. If you have a problem with that, it is just that, your problem.
However, most of your post made my point. The outcome of that match had little to nothing to do with their respective aiming systems. One player (Lou) was more experienced and had better fundamentals, that player won. I think it is rather remarkable that John came as far as he did in such a short period of time. He kept the game close with a lot of good CB control on some tough shots. I also think John has a lot more heart than Lou. Many people have commented about John's stroke over time and no doubt, under the tremendous pressure of that match, some of those stroke deficiencies were magnified.
Perhaps you missed my point. 336Robin stated that John's performance against Lou, while being a proponent of CTE/Pro One didn't serve CTE/Pro One well. My response was I didn't see how John's performance against Lou had any bearing on the validity of CTE/Pro One as an aiming system due to his obvious fundamental issues. That isn't even a mild insult to John, for goodness sake, that one collage of photos showing John's flying cue has been posted here several dozen times at least it seems.
I agree wholeheartedly that fundamentals, PSR, alignment and a solid stroke must be in place for any aiming system to work. It only makes sense, I'm not sure how it could be anything other than that. I don't know, perhaps you just wanted to attempt to argue. Whatever.
You're tilting at the wrong windmill, nobbie. I'm not here to argue, and you should know that by now. I'm not here all that often. I just call 'em as I see 'em, when I'm here, and if your short memory hasn't done an end-run, that I often back aiming systems.
I find it funny that because you didn't like how I replied, you're trying to lump me in with those that are wanting to argue, from just a *single* post.
-Sean <-- didn't know his debating knife was so sharp to cause this kind of reply with a single post; will have to rub his debating knife on some concrete to dull it