Old
  (#136)
CaptainJR
Shiver me timbers.
CaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond repute
 
CaptainJR's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Mar 2004
   
12-01-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
CaptainJR..."If you want to convince me all you have to do is tell me how your system changes on each of those shots to pocket the ball. For every shot you show that it does work on there are a thousand other shots that is doesn't work on."

Please don't misunderstand or feel that the following is intended to be even slightly impudent....honest...but I am really not concerned with trying to convince you of anything.

I have posted the system. It works. If you are interested in it then you will investigate it yourself and if you're not, you're not. TOTALLY fine with me either way.

Regards,
jim


As usual with these types of threads and systems, as soon as someone proves it doesn't work they say 'they don't care what you think'. Then they go on trying to prove it works to everyone else except the person that proved them wrong.

If it is working for you, you are using other compensations that you don't know you are doing. That is fine. Good for you.

The reason that I come into this type of thing and show it doesn't work is to save some beginner the frustration of trying to make it work when it doesn't.

I don't mean anything personally against you. I'm sorry it sort of comes out that way.


CaptJR
Avast Ya Scurvy Scum. Swab the deck! Walk the plank. Dead men tell no tales. Where's me Rum!
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#137)
av84fun
Banned
av84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,750
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Sep 2006
   
12-01-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:
I don't mean anything personally against you. I'm sorry it sort of comes out that way.
No, not at all and in the same spirit let me respond that:

My system DOES work in the vast majority of cases and you cannot, in good faith, argue that it does not because you haven't tried it.

Having said that, as I have already posted, since the system is based on "rifle sight" aiming, it is unavoidably subject to the vagaries of human vision that are WELL known to science and obviously cause certain people to obtain radically different "sight pictures" even when viewing the exact same objects.

So, it would be wrong...and I never have suggested that such a system must work for everyone.

Your bottom line is that eventually, aim becomes a matter of feel by which I assume you mean "instinctive behavior not generated by a conscious plan."

If that is not what you mean, I am genuinely interested in what you do mean.

But if my definition is close, then I suggest that a system proceeds any ability to aim by feel.

[QUOTEThe reason that I come into this type of thing and show it doesn't work is to save some beginner the frustration of trying to make it work when it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

But with respect, you haven't done any such thing. Please point me to any of your posts that I may have overlooked that proves anything about the system one way or the other.

You certainly have expressed your opinion and totally fine with me. But tell me, if you would, how many shots at how many angles at what lengths and positions on the table have you shot in an effort to test the system?

But you join a certain other poster in perpetuating the notion that even if you did test it, it wouldn't prove anything since the tester would just subconsciously shoot by some other formula.

That thesis suggests that the new student whose interests you attempt to protect should just bang the balls around until they start going in and then try to imprint that feel into their inner depths.

But such a thesis flies in the face of the way in which the most noted teachers of all time approach the issue of pocketing balls. So, exhibiting the same concern as you do about newcomers being led astray, let me suggest to them that they ignore all "shoot 'em until you get the feel" and instead go buy AT LEAST Byrn'es Standard Book of Pool and Billiards and Koehler's The Science of Pocket Billiards...BOTH of which discuss the use of aiming SYSTEMS.

And again, for those posters who have so vociferously PROVEN (in their own minds) that any system not based on PURE geometry CANNOT WORK, let me refer them to Byrne's discussion of collision-induced throw.

Moreoever, Koehler deleved even deeper into that subject. On page 40 (of my addition of "Science if Pocket Billiards" Koehler has a chart demonstrating that collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES even on clean balls which, on longer shots will cause a significant miss.

So, for those...including several in this thread...who propose that if a shot is not geometrically correct, it cannot go and if it is, it must go, have never heard of collision-induced throw or deny both Byrne's and Koeller's findings on that subject.

As a matter of fact, the reason that my system DOES WORK for the vast majority of shots (as recently edited) MAY be due to the influence of collision-induced throw. I have no earthly idea whether that is correct but it would certainly be worth investigation by you number cruncher types...and would be far more respectful of scientific study than merely denying the viability of the system based on utterly dogmatic theories about geometry in the face of advice from Byrne, Koehler and many others to the contrary.

Finally, since Koehler's work has been referred to here, let me pass on his advice to people, including one rather self-confident poster here who recommends the ghost ball method. About that method, Koehler writes on page 28..." This aiming technique is accurate and simple enough for beginners but must be modified slightly to achieve absolute accuracy."

So for you ghost ball proponents, when you fail to finish as high in your local tournaments than you would prefer, you might want to take Koehler's advice to heart and more thoroughly study methods that DO NOT rely on raw geometry...for the reasons cited above.


Please know that these comments are presented to you in the same spirit yours were presented to me.

Regards,
Jim
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#138)
Jal
AzB Silver Member
Jal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,231
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jan 2005
   
12-01-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
...And again, for those posters who have so vociferously PROVEN (in their own minds) that any system not based on PURE geometry CANNOT WORK, let me refer them to Byrne's discussion of collision-induced throw.

Moreoever, Koehler deleved even deeper into that subject. On page 40 (of my addition of "Science if Pocket Billiards" Koehler has a chart demonstrating that collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES even on clean balls which, on longer shots will cause a significant miss.

So, for those...including several in this thread...who propose that if a shot is not geometrically correct, it cannot go and if it is, it must go, have never heard of collision-induced throw or deny both Byrne's and Koeller's findings on that subject.

As a matter of fact, the reason that my system DOES WORK for the vast majority of shots (as recently edited) MAY be due to the influence of collision-induced throw. I have no earthly idea whether that is correct but it would certainly be worth investigation by you number cruncher types...
Jim, here is a look at how throw would affect your example (four balls on the center string).

You've already eliminated ball #1, but I'll include it here. The cut angles that will put the OB in the dead center of the pocket, if no throw takes place, are:

#1: 43.39 degrees
#2: 37.92
#3: 32.57
#4: 27.44

With a 5" pocket, there is a tolerance of 2.23 degrees on either side (OB on the spot). You could make this a little larger to allow for the fact that a ball will still drop even if it overlaps a jaw a bit (about 1/8 ball diameter if hit slowly). On the other hand, typical pocket sizes will be smaller than 5". Let's go with 2.5 degrees.

Your system uses a 30 degree cut for all four shots. Whatever words you've chosen to specify the aim direction, it still amounts to a 30 degree cut, ignoring throw. With throw, the actual cut angle is reduced to something less than 30 degrees.

As you can see, neither pocket slop nor throw will be sufficient to make shots 1 and 2 (throw will in fact make things worse). Shot 3 is borderline and throw will also make things worse here. Shot 4 is the only one helped by throw, so only one of them is pretty much a sure thing using your system. Natural variation in aim/stroke should also result in shot 3 dropping a fair amount of the time, but there'll probably be more nays than yeas here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
...and would be far more respectful of scientific study than merely denying the viability of the system based on utterly dogmatic theories about geometry in the face of advice from Byrne, Koehler and many others to the contrary.
Geometry and physics are the very antithesis of "dogmatic". But they've been around so long, and have proven themselves to be so utterly reliable, when someone says something that contradicts them you can safely assume that the fault lies not with them, but with the speaker.

Your system is not useless by any means. But it's more limited than you thought it was, and it's value is even more questionable if these limitations aren't recognized.

Jim

Last edited by Jal; 12-01-2007 at 11:47 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#139)
av84fun
Banned
av84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,750
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Sep 2006
   
12-02-2007, 01:49 AM

JAL...Your system uses a 30 degree cut for all four shots. Whatever words you've chosen to specify the aim direction, it still amounts to a 30 degree cut, ignoring throw. With throw, the actual cut angle is reduced to something less than 30 degrees.

THANKS for the trouble you took to calculate those angles but almost certainly due to my own problems with explaining the system, your presumption that the system results in a 30 deg. cut for all shots is not not correct.

You are concluding that by aiming the tip at the same place on the OB for all 3 shots produces the same cut angle is where we are having the disconnect.

Let me see if I can get us on the same page. First, if you aim the cue tip at a given shot and shoot that identical shot multiple times then, of course, you will get the same cut angle every time.

BUT the HUGE DIFFERENCE is that you are NOT shooting the same shot multiple times...because the CB is moved for all shots!

Given that the CB has moved and the OB has not, then the ONLY way to get the same 30 deg. cut would be to aim the tip at a DIFFERENT place on the OB!

I JUST went to my table...set up the 3 shots and didn't even bend over the shot. I just stood behind the shots and leveled the cue one handed to "aim" the tip at the half on/half off sight picture and then placed the cue behind the second and third shots and I could SEE that shot angle declining. Just try that. It is WIERD if you don't see the cut angles reduce and I have no explanation for that other than eye dominance issues I suppose. But I have SEVERAL members with whom I am carrying on pm dialogs who report that it's workin' for them too so its just strange.

Regarding geometry being the antithesis of dogma I disagree...dogmatically. (-:

In some usage, dogma is considered both authoritative and arrogant but I certainly did not mean to assert arrogance on your part.

The version of dogma I ascribed to geometry conforms to this definition:
"An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. "

Those espousing arguments based on geometry do so authoritatively and with the belief that what they say is absolutely true. With great respect, I think you posts on this topic exactly conforms to the above definition and is not at all the antithises of it.

If you reply to this...please save me some time. Are you one of the few who actually tried the 3 shot series?

Finally, your wrote..."Jim, here is a look at how throw would affect your example (four balls on the center string)."

Thanks, for that analysys. But you didn't specify how much throw was being induced. At Koehler's maximum of 11 degrees under the worst conditions, all 3 shots go easily. If the difference is split between the extremes of 4-11 degrees to say 7, then all 3 also go given your 1/8 ball tolerance for striking a point.

In addition, as the shot length moves back from the 3'+ distance from the spot, then the throw factor (in degrees) and be reduced to something less than the 7 degrees mentioned above. Correct?

But I am not basing my system on throw. I will say, however, that I don't recall a single post from the math guys even mentioning that geometry clearly does NOT perfectly predict the outcome of shots and in fact, prior to my posting of the Koehler data, I would have betcha a dime that some would have argued that raw geometry WOULD perfectly predict the outcomes....thus my dogmatic remark.

But Jim...here's the deal. Earlier, I set the CB on the head string...dead center and the OB on the spot and used TP 5 to cut the shot.

I would imagine you would agree that shot is not a hanger. I alternated between the right and left corners so as not to freeze either shot picture and drilled the shots 9 times out of 10 tries.

My guess is that most observers would agree that is no more than a 70% probability shot for most players. What would you say it is?

And that is the bottom line. I have SIGNIFICANTLY improved my shotmaking percentages via use of this system.

I appreciate your stating that it is by no means useless and it DOES have its limitations...a FEW more than I thought. But being imperfect does not mean that it can't improve the user's shot making percentages. If it did so by even 10% then every player in the world would be clamoring to learn it!!

I can't wait until DCC when I will stand 6 feet behind TOP shooters, with my BACK turned...have him/her aim the 3 shot series with a LaserCue so that there will be no question about where the tip is pointing and tell them EXACTLY to what spot on the OB their tip is aiming!!!!

FUN!!!!!!!!!

And I will LOVE the posts that will appear here....SOON!!!! (-:
(NOTE: I've already done it with a world champion which is not one of the least reasons why I am so sure it works...absent dominant eye issues...but WHY is works is unknown to me and also of almost no conern other than idle curiosity.)

Genuine THANKS for your comments Jim!!

(-:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#140)
pdcue
AzB Silver Member
pdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,493
vCash: 500
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2006
   
12-02-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
Quoting me A) Learning may be accomplished by both positive and negative example such that the proposition of wrong theories serve to reinforce correct ones and
B) The SEARCH for knowledge and means of improvement is noble in and of itself and should therefore be encouraged and not trashed with arrogance and condescension.

Would you agree with that?

Regards,
Jim


Quoting you...Would I agree? - No.

Well, that's sort of sad...no it is actually sad... because it demonstrates that your study of history is virtually non-existant since any such study would reveal that most of the great innovations of all time were contributed by people who were nearly universally criticized...IF NOT JAILD OR EXECUTED...by the vast majority of their contemporaries.

Do you know nothing about Bell, Beethoven, Einstein, Billy Mitchell, Galileo...pick a religious profet??? Too bad.



EXACTLY how many "good players" have you interviewed on that subject?

And how about GREAT players? How do THEY approach this subject and how many of THEM have you interviewed.

And if what you say is correct, why is it that practically every author of LEGENDARY instructional manual (and I own most of them) TEACH AIMING SYSTEMS/METHODS/TECHNIQUES?? Some devote WHOLE CHAPTERS to the subject.

Have you ever heard of Robert Byrne? Do yourself a favor and invest in his Standard Book of Pool and Billiards and note that on page 23 (in my edition) he discusses aiming systems!!! I have already discussed that such systems MAY IN SOME CASES BUT NOT NEARLY ALL be reduced to the subconscious but that the system is still their AND FUNCTIONING.

And with reference to you geometry devotees, let me quote directly from Byrne who wrote:

"While the geometric aiming method described in the first four diagrams is useful at first, you will soon discover that you must hit the object ball slightly thinner than indicated."

He goes on to discuss friction induced throw. So when you and/or Patrick pontificdate that certain shots CAN'T go due to the geometric PROOFS, we are left to agree with you, or Robert Byrne.

I choose Byrne.

So if YOUR learn nothing else from this thread...learn this...that you should refrain from making broad generalizations, citing them as fact, when it is OBVIOUS that you ar not in possession of anywhere near sufficient data to support your statements and are therefore, just expressing opinions based upon not based upon or supported by any set of data which you could produce.

Hey, opinions are fine. I have no problem with opinions. Have a lot of them myself. But I DO have a problem with the age-old tactic of less skilled debaters of attempting to pass opinion off as FACT which is demonstrably what you have done here.

Regards,
Jim
JIm

This might be the time to note we have come
full circle - full sprial.

Ironic that you chose to invoke the name of Bob Byrne.
Guess who Mr. Byrne seeks out when he feels the need for
guidance on matters billiardesque?

Hint #1 He was the first to point out your 'system' was rubbish.
Hint #2 He often plays with a Balabushka with no ferrule.
Hint #3 He's more polite than I, or my new best friend Patrick Johnson.

Dale

Last edited by pdcue; 12-02-2007 at 02:48 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#141)
pdcue
AzB Silver Member
pdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond reputepdcue has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,493
vCash: 500
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2006
   
12-02-2007, 06:46 AM

[QUOTE=av84fun]
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdcue
\

This might be a good point<no pun intended> to interject
some clairifcation.

I think you do not fully understand the diference between 'aiming'
and 'sighting'[QUOTE/]

Now it is YOUR turn to munch on some crow. In fact, the verb forms of "aim" and "sight" are synonymous to wit:

v. sight?ed, sight?ing, sights
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eyes; get sight of: sighted land after 40 days at sea.
2. To observe through a sight or an optical instrument: sight a target.
3. To adjust the sights of (a rifle, for example).
4. To take aim with (a firearm).




Thanks for sharing!!!



No, by definition, you are wrong again. If you poke a ball placed onto a table after your are blindfolded you have not "aimed" sir.

aim (m)
v. aimed, aim?ing, aims
v.tr.
1. To direct (a weapon) toward an intended target.

You cannot direct a weapon toward an INTENDED target if you have no idea where the target is!



Cool. Whatever works.



Fine...and that only reinforces my earlier comment that ball pocketing methods that TODAY can be described as being based on feel or instinct are actually not. They are based on SOME SYSTEM that, over time, has been reduced to the subconscious mind BUT IT IS STILL THERE...IT HAS NOT VANISHED LEAVING YOU TO ONLY GUESS!



Whatever, but those phrases are all synonymous!!

system (n)


Synonyms: scheme, arrangement, classification, structure, organism, organization, coordination
Synonyms: method, technique, procedure, routine, approach, practice

You're gettin in over your head Dale. (-:

Regards,
Jim
As if you had some clue.
So much reading of words - still zero grasp of meaning.

I had hoped my sample of shooting a basketball with a BB would
have been enough of a clue for even you. Once again, I overestimated
your ability to think.

To wit. Sighting and aimming while shooting a rifle<or BB gun>
are indeed, pretty much interchangeable.

Sighting and aiming at pool, are related, but, except in rare
circumstances, decidedly NOT interchangeable.

Perhaps we could get Bob Byrne to explain it to you.

Again, I mention these ideas only because many members follow
these threads - maybe some of the comments can be helpful
to players who are still learning.

Dale
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#142)
CaptainJR
Shiver me timbers.
CaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond repute
 
CaptainJR's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Mar 2004
   
12-02-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
No, not at all and in the same spirit let me respond that:

My system DOES work in the vast majority of cases and you cannot, in good faith, argue that it does not because you haven't tried it.

Having said that, as I have already posted, since the system is based on "rifle sight" aiming, it is unavoidably subject to the vagaries of human vision that are WELL known to science and obviously cause certain people to obtain radically different "sight pictures" even when viewing the exact same objects.

I would refer to it more like ?shotgun? aiming. Hehe, (just trying to lighten things up a little with humor, just kidding there.) Yes, you are right about 'sight pictures'. You can set a rifle (without a scope) on a front and rear rest and different people will see it aimed differently.


Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
So, it would be wrong...and I never have suggested that such a system must work for everyone.

Your bottom line is that eventually, aim becomes a matter of feel by which I assume you mean "instinctive behavior not generated by a conscious plan."

If that is not what you mean, I am genuinely interested in what you do mean.

But if my definition is close, then I suggest that a system proceeds any ability to aim by feel.

Yup, that's it. It applies to any system as soon as you start changing the tip position or using a soft or very hard stroke. The problem I see with your system is that using it you now add to those by also having to adjust your basic aiming point. You have enough to adjust for without having to adjust that as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
But with respect, you haven't done any such thing. Please point me to any of your posts that I may have overlooked that proves anything about the system one way or the other.

You certainly have expressed your opinion and totally fine with me. But tell me, if you would, how many shots at how many angles at what lengths and positions on the table have you shot in an effort to test the system?

But you join a certain other poster in perpetuating the notion that even if you did test it, it wouldn't prove anything since the tester would just subconsciously shoot by some other formula.

That thesis suggests that the new student whose interests you attempt to protect should just bang the balls around until they start going in and then try to imprint that feel into their inner depths.

But such a thesis flies in the face of the way in which the most noted teachers of all time approach the issue of pocketing balls. So, exhibiting the same concern as you do about newcomers being led astray, let me suggest to them that they ignore all "shoot 'em until you get the feel" and instead go buy AT LEAST Byrn'es Standard Book of Pool and Billiards and Koehler's The Science of Pocket Billiards...BOTH of which discuss the use of aiming SYSTEMS.

And again, for those posters who have so vociferously PROVEN (in their own minds) that any system not based on PURE geometry CANNOT WORK, let me refer them to Byrne's discussion of collision-induced throw.

Moreoever, Koehler deleved even deeper into that subject. On page 40 (of my addition of "Science if Pocket Billiards" Koehler has a chart demonstrating that collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES even on clean balls which, on longer shots will cause a significant miss.

So, for those...including several in this thread...who propose that if a shot is not geometrically correct, it cannot go and if it is, it must go, have never heard of collision-induced throw or deny both Byrne's and Koeller's findings on that subject.

As a matter of fact, the reason that my system DOES WORK for the vast majority of shots (as recently edited) MAY be due to the influence of collision-induced throw. I have no earthly idea whether that is correct but it would certainly be worth investigation by you number cruncher types...and would be far more respectful of scientific study than merely denying the viability of the system based on utterly dogmatic theories about geometry in the face of advice from Byrne, Koehler and many others to the contrary.

Finally, since Koehler's work has been referred to here, let me pass on his advice to people, including one rather self-confident poster here who recommends the ghost ball method. About that method, Koehler writes on page 28..." This aiming technique is accurate and simple enough for beginners but must be modified slightly to achieve absolute accuracy."

I have not read ?Koehler?, but in my experience (nearly 40 years of shooting pool) collision induced throw only has to be considered on very slow (where the grab of the cue ball to the object ball) and very fast (where the blunt force of the speed) will induce some collision induced throw. Making the object ball cut a little less than what your aim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
So for you ghost ball proponents, when you fail to finish as high in your local tournaments than you would prefer, you might want to take Koehler's advice to heart and more thoroughly study methods that DO NOT rely on raw geometry...for the reasons cited above.

Ghost ball, well I use an advanced version of that on more difficult shots using contact points (points being plural. One on the object ball and one on the cue ball). On simple shots I just, well I guess you could call it a 'shotgun' type, where I adjust for what I want the cue ball to do and pull the trigger. I know it is in the hole. As far as the ghost ball, I do think it is the best thing for beginners. Most people can quickly understand it. The difficult shots are the problem (of course). When I say difficult I'm not referring to banks or caroms, I?m mostly referring to shots where the OBJECT BALL is a long enough distance from the pocket and reduces the margin of error. I think that anyone that makes an effort and spends at least a reasonable amount of time at the table will fairly quickly be able to make easy shots where the object ball it close to the pocket. So I think any aiming system used needs to be deadly accurate on 'ALL' shots. (Not just some or a majority of shots.) So when you have a difficult shot you know that if you execute correctly your aiming system will put the ball in the pocket FOR SURE. Emphasizing 'FOR SURE' brings up something else I?d like to ask. (ask not just to you but all writers here.)

I'm wondering how much the success or failure of an aiming system is based on the self-expectation of a player. At league night you here it all the time. A player will come to a difficult shot and miss. Everyone says 'that's OK, it was a tough shot'. As of this date, half way through our winter league season, shooting .804, I have the best average in the league. Not that I don?t make mistakes but the mistakes are usually in position rather than missing the shot. Ending up having to shoot a difficult shot. I contribute my high average to making the difficult shots. (I know that I have jinxed myself by talking like that. LOL) In other words when I?m looking at a difficult shot, it is also a 'must make' shot.

So I'm wondering how much of the 'my system works' is based on. 'I missed that shot but it is OK because it was a very difficult shot.'

Tell me your system works when you are making the large majority of your difficult shots.

r,
JR


CaptJR
Avast Ya Scurvy Scum. Swab the deck! Walk the plank. Dead men tell no tales. Where's me Rum!

Last edited by CaptainJR; 12-02-2007 at 07:51 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#143)
Patrick Johnson
Fish of the Day
Patrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
 
Patrick Johnson's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 20,188
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2007
   
12-02-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:
av84fun:
I can read so I do know "what you say."
No, you don't. You haven't followed a word of it.

pj
chgo
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#144)
Patrick Johnson
Fish of the Day
Patrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
 
Patrick Johnson's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 20,188
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2007
   
12-02-2007, 07:50 AM

Quote:
collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES
Do you think the amount of throw differs for your 4 proposition shots? If it does, why? If it doesn't, how do your shots produce different cut angles?

pj
chgo
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#145)
Patrick Johnson
Fish of the Day
Patrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
 
Patrick Johnson's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 20,188
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2007
   
12-02-2007, 11:09 AM

Here's one last attempt to show you what you're misunderstanding about throw: when you move the CB, both the "theoretical cut angle" (30 degrees for a half ball aim) and the actual cut angle (say 26 degrees after throw) remain the same in relation to the CB/Ghost CB aim line. So moving the cue ball moves not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also both the 30-degree theoretical cut angle and the 26-degree actual OB path. In other words, throw doesn't help you here.

In your proposition shot the OB and the pocket (my "target") don't move, so I indicate that with pins through them. But the angle of the shot does change, which I show by rotating the whole thing around the pinned-in-place OB. You should be able to see (although I somehow doubt you will even with pictures) that moving the CB changes not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also the OB path - by exactly the same amount. Throw doesn't change that.

Can you read what my words say? Can you see what the picture says? Do you finally get my meaning? Throw doesn't help you here.

pj
chgo


Last edited by Patrick Johnson; 03-13-2008 at 10:14 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
pool
Old
  (#146)
kildegirl
AzB Silver Member
kildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond reputekildegirl has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: me
   
pool - 12-02-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by randyg
Hi Bob: Ghost Ball-Contact Point-Fractional-Math & Feel, not in any order...SPF=randyg
hogwash in spades
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#147)
CaptainJR
Shiver me timbers.
CaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond reputeCaptainJR has a reputation beyond repute
 
CaptainJR's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Mar 2004
   
12-02-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
Here's one last attempt to show you what you're misunderstanding about throw: when you move the CB, both the "theoretical cut angle" (30 degrees for a half ball aim) and the actual cut angle (say 26 degrees after throw) remain the same in relation to the CB/Ghost CB aim line. So moving the cue ball moves not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also both the 30-degree theoretical cut angle and the 26-degree actual OB path. In other words, throw doesn't help you here.

In your proposition shot the OB and the pocket (my "target") don't move, so I indicate that with pins through them. But the angle of the shot does change, which I show by rotating the whole thing around the pinned-in-place OB. You should be able to see (although I somehow doubt you will even with pictures) that moving the CB changes not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also the OB path - by exactly the same amount. Throw doesn't change that.

Can you read what my words say? Can you see what the picture says? Do you finally get my meaning? Throw doesn't help you here.

pj
chgo

edited something was wrong with my graphics. You would believe what I was seeing on my screen.

Anyway, now that I can see it. I like it. Although you were just talking about throw it also shows why aiming systems like this will not work all the time.

Very good
JR


CaptJR
Avast Ya Scurvy Scum. Swab the deck! Walk the plank. Dead men tell no tales. Where's me Rum!

Last edited by CaptainJR; 12-02-2007 at 12:43 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#148)
Jal
AzB Silver Member
Jal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond reputeJal has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,231
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jan 2005
   
12-02-2007, 12:58 PM

Hi Jim,

First of all, if no one has said so yet, thanks for presenting your system, and I think your description of it has been very clear. Your defense of it has reached heroic proportions!

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
JAL...Your system uses a 30 degree cut for all four shots. Whatever words you've chosen to specify the aim direction, it still amounts to a 30 degree cut, ignoring throw. With throw, the actual cut angle is reduced to something less than 30 degrees.

THANKS for the trouble you took to calculate those angles but almost certainly due to my own problems with explaining the system, your presumption that the system results in a 30 deg. cut for all shots is not not correct.

You are concluding that by aiming the tip at the same place on the OB for all 3 shots produces the same cut angle is where we are having the disconnect.

Let me see if I can get us on the same page. First, if you aim the cue tip at a given shot and shoot that identical shot multiple times then, of course, you will get the same cut angle every time.

BUT the HUGE DIFFERENCE is that you are NOT shooting the same shot multiple times...because the CB is moved for all shots!

Given that the CB has moved and the OB has not, then the ONLY way to get the same 30 deg. cut would be to aim the tip at a DIFFERENT place on the OB!
I agree that our usage of "cut angle" may be the cause of some of the problems. The standard meaning of cut angle is the angle between the cueball's initial (pre-impact) direction and the object ball's post-impact direction. We can distinguish between the "geometric cut angle", which ignores throw and a very slight compression effect, and the actual or "physical cut angle", which does not ignore them. I don't mean to sound 'dogmatic' about this , just reporting what people mean by it, most of the time anyway.

If you aim the center of the cueball at the edge of the object ball, for instance, that always results in a 30 degree geometric cut angle no matter where the cueball is located relative to the object ball. Throw will reduce this a little (unless you are using sufficient outside english). For the four shots in your example, the numbers I listed above are the geometric cut angles necessary for center pocket. If I understand correctly, your TP3 says to aim the center of the cueball at the edge of the object ball in all four cases (I know, one of them has been dropped from the list). Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
I JUST went to my table...set up the 3 shots and didn't even bend over the shot. I just stood behind the shots and leveled the cue one handed to "aim" the tip at the half on/half off sight picture and then placed the cue behind the second and third shots and I could SEE that shot angle declining. Just try that. It is WIERD if you don't see the cut angles reduce and I have no explanation for that other than eye dominance issues I suppose. But I have SEVERAL members with whom I am carrying on pm dialogs who report that it's workin' for them too so its just strange.
The shot angles should reduce as you move from cueball #2 to #4 if you want to pocket the ball. But, if we understand it, your system is recommending aiming the cueball at the edge of the object ball for all three shots, thus producing the same 30 degree cut angle (a little less with throw considered).

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
Regarding geometry being the antithesis of dogma I disagree...dogmatically. (-:

In some usage, dogma is considered both authoritative and arrogant but I certainly did not mean to assert arrogance on your part.

The version of dogma I ascribed to geometry conforms to this definition:
"An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. "

Those espousing arguments based on geometry do so authoritatively and with the belief that what they say is absolutely true. With great respect, I think you posts on this topic exactly conforms to the above definition and is not at all the antithises of it.
I think the definition in my dictionary stresses the arrogant or "absolutely true" part a little more, but I'll plead guilty to coming across as per your cited definition. I appreciate you're not pinning the arrogant connotation on me. Nor do I think any of the others deserve it, though we may seem a bit too "authoritative" at times. I think the thing which distinguishes it is that diagrams and formulas have been presented in good faith, exposed to the possibility of refutation. (I'll supply the calcs behind my figures for the cut angles if you like.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
If you reply to this...please save me some time. Are you one of the few who actually tried the 3 shot series?
Sorry, no table and I haven't been to the poolroom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
Finally, your wrote..."Jim, here is a look at how throw would affect your example (four balls on the center string)."

Thanks, for that analysys. But you didn't specify how much throw was being induced. At Koehler's maximum of 11 degrees under the worst conditions, all 3 shots go easily. If the difference is split between the extremes of 4-11 degrees to say 7, then all 3 also go given your 1/8 ball tolerance for striking a point.
A lot of work has been done on throw over the last few years, and a reasonable estimate for the amount of throw on a 30 degree cut (or around 30 degrees), is anywhere from near zero (a few tenths of a degree) to up around 4 or 5 degrees. This is for a cueball with no sidespin. You get the least on a high speed shot where the cueball has max topspin or backspin. The most throw occurs on a slow stun shot (no topspin or backspin).

So, to the extent you accept the figures I listed for the geometric cut angles for center pocket, you would have to increase them, the geometric cut angles that is, to allow for throw, since throw results in a smaller physical cut angle. But your system recommends a 30 degree geometric cut angle for all of them, if we understand it. That will only work for shot #4 since the 30 degrees will be reduced to something between 30 and 25, and the geometry calls for a 27.4 degree cut, plus or minus about 2.5 degrees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
In addition, as the shot length moves back from the 3'+ distance from the spot, then the throw factor (in degrees) and be reduced to something less than the 7 degrees mentioned above. Correct?
If you move the OB back along that diagonal impact line, keeping the cueballs in the same position, you'll need an even larger cut angle than the ones listed. Throw will be even more of a detriment, if I'm getting the gist of your question (which I'm probably not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
But I am not basing my system on throw. I will say, however, that I don't recall a single post from the math guys even mentioning that geometry clearly does NOT perfectly predict the outcome of shots and in fact, prior to my posting of the Koehler data, I would have betcha a dime that some would have argued that raw geometry WOULD perfectly predict the outcomes....thus my dogmatic remark.
Maybe. Can't vouch for everyone. But throw is so variable, depending on speed and spin of the cueball, you have to start with the geometry and go from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
But Jim...here's the deal. Earlier, I set the CB on the head string...dead center and the OB on the spot and used TP 5 to cut the shot.

I would imagine you would agree that shot is not a hanger. I alternated between the right and left corners so as not to freeze either shot picture and drilled the shots 9 times out of 10 tries.

My guess is that most observers would agree that is no more than a 70% probability shot for most players. What would you say it is?
You'll have to point this one out Jim. I don't know where to begin looking in this thread (ie, where on the head string?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by av84fun
And that is the bottom line. I have SIGNIFICANTLY improved my shotmaking percentages via use of this system.
I can see then why you are defending it so vigorously. It's amazing you haven't become discouraged and just said the hell with all of you; I wouldn't have made it past the first page of criticisms. Maybe you could refine it a bit on the basis of what has been said, if you should come to believe that what we are saying has some merit. Thanks again for showing us the system.

Jim

Last edited by Jal; 12-02-2007 at 01:07 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#149)
av84fun
Banned
av84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,750
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Sep 2006
   
12-02-2007, 04:29 PM

pdcue...Well your post establishes quite a few things.

1. That you are rude...which you at least admit to.
2. That you're reading skills are deficient. Bob Jewett who EVERYONE knows collaberated extensively with Robert Byrne, never stated that the system was "rubbish." In fact, he has not had much to say. But what he DID say was:

"I think that any system that shoots balls to the back of the pocket liner is totally broken and not worth considering at all. If that is what your current system does, I feel that you should not waste our or your time with it."

Of course, the system does NOT attempt to do what Mr. Jewett suggested and so his comment was not applicable.

Finally, I find it ironic that my citing the work of Byrne and Koehler got under your skin so but it is clear why. Becauses it TRASHES your and your new best friend's slavish devotion to raw geometry which Byrne and Koehler teach BEGINNERS is not true!

Regards,
Jim
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#150)
av84fun
Banned
av84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond reputeav84fun has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,750
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Sep 2006
   
12-02-2007, 04:36 PM

pdcue..."Again, I mention these ideas only because many members follow
these threads - maybe some of the comments can be helpful
to players who are still learning."

Which players...do you think...are no longer interested in learning...excluding you, of course.

And I am SURE that the members of this forum sleep MUCH more soundly knowing that DALE is here to protect them.

ROFLMAO!!

Finally, as this thread demonstrates, when a FEW ACTUAL flaws in the sytem were pointed out...I READILY admited as much and thanked the poster. You on the other hand, when shown to be clearly in error, bare your (venomless) fangs.

I prefer manniing up to errors and not engaging in a lot of diversionary breast beating as you do.

(-:
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 10 of 15 « First 8910 1112 Last »

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.