My theory is aiming means nothing...

Low500 said:

No, that is not 'clear'. ...

Click to expand...

Looks like you didn't bother to do what Dr. Dave suggested in post #62. Here's part of the link: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#draw

[Sometimes the same contact point on the OB will pocket it with follow, stun, or draw because of pocket slop or the angle of the shot or the speed of the shot.]

That is what I want to know. Who actually aims the throw? You can adjust and estimate effects of squirt and swerve when applying english, but how can anyone claim they actually 'calculate' the amount of throw? Throw is such a delicate effect that it sounds correct to say there is only one point of contact to pocket the ball.

Personally I only acknowledge throw when balls are frozen, being that it is much more significant because of static friction. If the effects of kinetic throw are not so obvious, does it matter as much as some people are saying it does for aiming purposes?

parogen said:

That is what I want to know. Who actually aims the throw? You can adjust and estimate effects of squirt and swerve when applying english, but how can anyone claim they actually 'calculate' the amount of throw? Throw is such a delicate effect that it sounds correct to say there is only one point of contact to pocket the ball.

Personally I only acknowledge throw when balls are frozen, being that it is much more significant because of static friction. If the effects of kinetic throw are not so obvious, does it matter as much as some people are saying it does for aiming purposes?

Click to expand...

Where standard shot making is concerned I don't know of anyone who aims
throw. Go play Pool in damp conditions and then add a dirty table and balls. You'll find out
quickly how much it can change things, but in ideal conditions its much less of a factor.
Most people make an intuitive adjustment based on what they know about the conditions they are playing under.
As for aiming being nothing, I find that hard believe. No matter how you aim, you'll adjust until you think its right and that
in and of itself is aiming. If something helps you get there, then thats something that helps. When you find what you think
is right and it looks good to you and it works, then it helped. When you learn to know when its right, you'll make the
intuitive (feel) adjustment for dampness in throw prevalent conditions and from that you'll get a feel for how much throw is present
for optimal conditions. All shots can be pocketed with different degrees of speed and spin but some shots are easier with
certain selections because of throw. Aiming will help you understand the base you need for shot making at Center Ball, the
intuitive adjustments are yours to learn to make.This doesn't mean aiming is nothing. It does mean, its not everything.
When it comes to Aiming what speaks volumes to one person doesn't work for another. I like my variety as simple as possible
with as few complications as possible so I can understand the intuitive end of cue ball delivery. Aiming is just a part that should be dependable, like
your stroke, your stance etc. In that way making it the same on as many shots as possible is helpful and comforting. Delivery of the Cue Ball
is everything. If you Aim great, stand great, stroke great but deliver poorly you won't have a great deal of success until you do. Good fundamentals
are needed to continue getting better. Without them you'll hit a wall on improvement until you fix them. My prescription is first learn to make a few balls.
Then when you get in a situation where you're missing shots (long shots, angled shots etc.) think about the things you need to improve on in your fundamentals to start making those
shots. If it were possible that everyone could start out with perfect fundamentals that would be great but that's not how it happens. Delivery of the Cue Ball is everything and
its your responsibility to learn to adjust for distance, you'll adjust to more perfect fundamentals if you expect consistency.
Many people blame something and it works 100 % of the time!

Bob Jewett said:

If Tor Lowery and Willie Mosconi said that the contact point remains the same for draw/stun/follow then they are wrong. But you don't have to take my word for it. In my May 2006 article in Billiards Digest I describe a simple test. It takes about 10 minutes. You can see for yourself who is right. Here's a link to all of my 2006 articles: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006.pdf
Willie was also wrong about shooting a ball frozen to the rail. He said you should alway hit the ball and the rail at the same time. We know now -- and have known for quite a while -- that you nearly always need to hit the cushion first and hitting ball and cushion at the same time is a recipe for disaster.
My conclusion is that Willie learned how to put every ball he shot at into the pocket. He did not learn the details of what was happening to the balls. It was probably better for his game that he didn't.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for answering my question in a precise, simple, manner without any snide personal remarks about "how dense Low 500 is" or "how little Low 500 knows about throw".
I respect your game, you don't dog it in the clutch, and unlike a lot of 'instructors' you will get up there and play against anybody.
I always said Mosconi was wrong about many things, but for some reason many people on here just went bat crazy when I did that. You've had the courage and guts to tell it like it is.
Again, thank you and good wishes.
P. Lowenstein.
:thumbup:

Low500 said:

No, the question has not been answered several times.
Who is wrong...
Tor Lowery
or Willie Mosconi
or Mr. Jewett.
Very simple question.

Click to expand...

Bob Jewett said:

If Tor Lowery and Willie Mosconi said that the contact point remains the same for draw/stun/follow then they are wrong. But you don't have to take my word for it. In my May 2006 article in Billiards Digest I describe a simple test. It takes about 10 minutes. You can see for yourself who is right. Here's a link to all of my 2006 articles: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006.pdf

Willie was also wrong about shooting a ball frozen to the rail. He said you should alway hit the ball and the rail at the same time. We know now -- and have known for quite a while -- that you nearly always need to hit the cushion first and hitting ball and cushion at the same time is a recipe for disaster.

My conclusion is that Willie learned how to put every ball he shot at into the pocket. He did not learn the details of what was happening to the balls. It was probably better for his game that he didn't.

Click to expand...

Low500 said:

Thank you very much for answering my question in a precise, simple, manner without any snide personal remarks about "how dense Low 500 is" or "how little Low 500 knows about throw".
I respect your game, you don't dog it in the clutch, and unlike a lot of 'instructors' you will get up there and play against anybody.
I always said Mosconi was wrong about many things, but for some reason many people on here just went bat crazy when I did that. You've had the courage and guts to tell it like it is.
Again, thank you and good wishes.
P. Lowenstein.
:thumbup:

Click to expand...

If you want more proof, see the effects of draw and follow on throw resource page.

And if you want visual proof that the contact point isn't always at the theoretical point along the line to the pocket, see:

- the throw section starting at the 7:34 point in NV J.9 - "Got English?" – How to Aim Using Sidespin, With Game-Situation Examples

- the throw section starting at the 5:01 point in NV J.10 - Top 10 Pool Shots Every Player Must Know!!!

- NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV

Please watch these videos when you get a chance. The visual evidence is very clear, and you can also easily reproduce this stuff at a pool table yourself.

Enjoy,
Dave

PS: How somebody plays often has nothing to do with the correctness or usefulness of what they might say.

Well, I'm glad the thread was resurrected. I miss a lot of the people that were posting on this topic in 2011.

The biggest detriment to my game is cue ball delivery. My stroke can be inconsistent at times and I fail to properly adjust my aim for CIT, etc. If I stick with center cue ball hits on a day when I am stroking good, I will have a better day on the table.

Thanks for all the good information, guys!

Maniac (although I will never figure out how to apply it to my game)

dr_dave said:

If you want more proof, see the effects of draw and follow on throw resource page.
And if you want visual proof that the contact point isn't always at the theoretical point along the line to the pocket, see:
- the throw section starting at the 7:34 point in NV J.9 - "Got English?" – How to Aim Using Sidespin, With Game-Situation Examples
- the throw section starting at the 5:01 point in NV J.10 - Top 10 Pool Shots Every Player Must Know!!!
- NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV
Please watch these videos when you get a chance. The visual evidence is very clear, and you can also easily reproduce this stuff at a pool table yourself.
Enjoy,
Dave
PS: How somebody plays often has nothing to do with the correctness or usefulness of what they might say.

Click to expand...

I have studied most of your videos for about a year, I'd guess. They are very good and represent a lot of work on your part. Thank you for posting the URL's.
Two words strike me as significant: Proof and Evidence (as I've made them larger)
There is strong evidence to support what you say about the contact point changing
There is also strong evidence to support what others say about the contact point remaining the same.
As for the PROOF...?? In this game, in my opinion, the proof is in how well the player performs under pressure in competition against other grown men with considerable stakes at risk. Using what he/she have determined is proof.
When I got called up by the Dodgers back in 1953, I thought I was just about the hottest infielder alive and I could hit the low and away like eating a hot dog. They sent me up to the Lookouts in Chattanooga for a "look see" as to whether I could make it in the big show. There I was faced with pitching from some of the marvelous old guys who were on their way down after being in the majors. "You little S.O.B busher....this one's coming right at your head, get ready to eat some dirt.". And then the ball would break and drop right into the strike zone. I found out very quickly that what I'd determined as 'proof' about that sport wasn't proof at all....just evidence that I'd accumulated. I lasted 4 days and was on the train back to home.
The point of all that off-topic diatribe is as follows..........
Speaking for myself, when a pool player is willing to walk into any pool room, carrying his pool cue, and says...."Is there anybody in this place who wants to play some serious pool?", THAT is the man or woman I prefer to pay the most attention to.
I wish you continued success with your work.

336Robin said:

Where standard shot making is concerned I don't know of anyone who aims
throw. Go play Pool in damp conditions and then add a dirty table and balls. You'll find out
quickly how much it can change things, but in ideal conditions its much less of a factor.
Most people make an intuitive adjustment based on what they know about the conditions they are playing under.
As for aiming being nothing, I find that hard believe. No matter how you aim, you'll adjust until you think its right and that
in and of itself is aiming. If something helps you get there, then thats something that helps. When you find what you think
is right and it looks good to you and it works, then it helped. When you learn to know when its right, you'll make the
intuitive (feel) adjustment for dampness in throw prevalent conditions and from that you'll get a feel for how much throw is present
for optimal conditions. All shots can be pocketed with different degrees of speed and spin but some shots are easier with
certain selections because of throw. Aiming will help you understand the base you need for shot making at Center Ball, the
intuitive adjustments are yours to learn to make.This doesn't mean aiming is nothing. It does mean, its not everything.
When it comes to Aiming what speaks volumes to one person doesn't work for another. I like my variety as simple as possible
with as few complications as possible so I can understand the intuitive end of cue ball delivery. Aiming is just a part that should be dependable, like
your stroke, your stance etc. In that way making it the same on as many shots as possible is helpful and comforting. Delivery of the Cue Ball
is everything. If you Aim great, stand great, stroke great but deliver poorly you won't have a great deal of success until you do. Good fundamentals
are needed to continue getting better. Without them you'll hit a wall on improvement until you fix them. My prescription is first learn to make a few balls.
Then when you get in a situation where you're missing shots (long shots, angled shots etc.) think about the things you need to improve on in your fundamentals to start making those
shots. If it were possible that everyone could start out with perfect fundamentals that would be great but that's not how it happens. Delivery of the Cue Ball is everything and
its your responsibility to learn to adjust for distance, you'll adjust to more perfect fundamentals if you expect consistency.
Many people blame something and it works 100 % of the time!

Click to expand...

Good point about conditions. I can imagine dirty and roughed up balls affecting trajectory. I also think you are right about automatically adjusting to those conditions. For if throw is enhanced by conditions, the player will just hit slightly thinner on all shots, not much thinking there.

I was mostly focused on ideal conditions, where it's not damp, balls are clean and smooth. I still believe in ideal conditions, effects of throw for non frozen balls are minimal.

Low500 said:

The point of all that off-topic diatribe is as follows..........
Speaking for myself, when a pool player is willing to walk into any pool room, carrying his pool cue, and says...."Is there anybody in this place who wants to play some serious pool?", THAT is the man or woman I prefer to pay the most attention to.
I wish you continued success with your work.

Click to expand...

your unwillingness to accept the fact that someone who cant play can still teach
limits your resources of people who can help you jmho
i am guessing based on your philosophy that you would probably walk off the teams of vince lombardi, bill bellickeck (sp ),red auerbach etc since they couldnt play they couldnt teach you anything
many of the greatest coaches cant do but can teach
jmho

Low500 said:

There is also strong evidence to support what others say about the contact point remaining the same.

Click to expand...

I have not seen any evidence to support this claim.

Just because some good players re-state things that have been stated in the past does not make those things true, regardless of how often or loud they may state them.

Lots of things some top players and good instructors sometimes say (especially in the past) are simply not true. Here are some examples:

- throw and spin transfer don't exist or aren't important
- a closed bridge is better than an open bridge, especially for draw shots
- a softer tip and LD shaft let you put more spin on the ball

FYI, many other pool myths that have been debunked over the years can be found, along with supporting evidence, here:

Top 100 Pool and Billiards Myths ... Debunked, Busted and Explained

Enjoy,
Dave

iusedtoberich said:

Ha ha, what are the odds he is a banned member? I'll bet 20:1.

Click to expand...

It does reek of red dick...and then to have lo500 take such a position? Like she opened the door for herself.

But the original bumper does have a fresh join date and rid-dick has a history of using longer established accounts.

bbb said:

your unwillingness to accept the fact that someone who cant play can still teach
limits your resources of people who can help you
i am guessing based on your philosophy that you would probably cause you to walk off the teams of vince lombardi, bill bellickeck (sp ),red auerbach etc
many of the greatest coaches cant do but can teach
jmho

Click to expand...

Fact??? (one man's fact is another man's folly)
When it comes to pool shooting, I'll accept the limits on resources of which you speak. That's just fine with me. :thumbup2:
As long as I don't pooch any money balls and can cash winners 80% of the time, I think I'll be happy with that.
With the talent Lombardi and those guys had on those teams.....maybe even someone as lame as me could've coached them into a title. (obviously, I'm being silly about that)
Good wishes to you.

dr_dave said:

I have not seen any evidence to support this claim.
Just because some good players re-state things that have been stated in the past does not make those things true, regardless of how often or loud they may state them.
Lots of things some top players and good instructors sometimes say (especially in the past) are simply not true. Here are some examples:
- throw and spin transfer don't exist or aren't important
- a closed bridge is better than an open bridge, especially for draw shots
- a softer tip and LD shaft let you put more spin on the ball
FYI, many other pool myths that have been debunked over the years can be found, along with supporting evidence, here:
Top 100 Pool and Billiards Myths ... Debunked, Busted and Explained
Enjoy,
Dave

Click to expand...

Perhaps what is considered fact today might just become folly further on down the road.?
Could happen, you know.
Life continues to evolve, new discoveries make older ones obsolete. That's just the way it is.
:shrug:

Bob Jewett said:

I know someone who does. I also know someone who shoots fractional ball aiming down to 1/64ths and he knows the angle of cut for each 64th of fullness on a ball. He can also look at the angle of the cue ball or object ball to the cushions for a shot and tell you what that angle is to about one degree.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet​

Me, I aim by feel.

Click to expand...

Me too. I simply feed my mind's eye a clear plcture of the shot angle, trust my mind has set my body and cue over the correct shotline, and commit to it.

parogen said:

Good point about conditions. I can imagine dirty and roughed up balls affecting trajectory. I also think you are right about automatically adjusting to those conditions. For if throw is enhanced by conditions, the player will just hit slightly thinner on all shots, not much thinking there.

I was mostly focused on ideal conditions, where it's not damp, balls are clean and smooth. I still believe in ideal conditions, effects of throw for non frozen balls are minimal.

Click to expand...

I'll go along with that to a certain degree. That degree would be long shots to
the corner pocket at around a half ball hit or a bit less. You'll find some outside Spin
extremely helpful on those or you adjust your aim to the other side of the pocket.

Low500 said:

dr_dave said:

I have not seen any evidence to support this claim.

Just because some good players re-state things that have been stated in the past does not make those things true, regardless of how often or loud they may state them.

Lots of things some top players and good instructors sometimes say (especially in the past) are simply not true. Here are some examples:

- throw and spin transfer don't exist or aren't important
- a closed bridge is better than an open bridge, especially for draw shots
- a softer tip and LD shaft let you put more spin on the ball

FYI, many other pool myths that have been debunked over the years can be found, along with supporting evidence, here:

Top 100 Pool and Billiards Myths ... Debunked, Busted and Explained

Click to expand...

Perhaps what is considered fact today might just become folly further on down the road.?
Could happen, you know.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But you seem to giving more credence to "old school" opinions and myths, rather than to current modern evidence-based understanding.

Regards,
Dave

Bob Jewett said:

I know someone who does. I also know someone who shoots fractional ball aiming down to 1/64ths and he knows the angle of cut for each 64th of fullness on a ball. He can also look at the angle of the cue ball or object ball to the cushions for a shot and tell you what that angle is to about one degree.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Hamlet​

Me, I aim by feel.

Click to expand...

Bob i looked at "The Rub" article and diagrams are kinda weird. In a nutshell, does draw/follow thin/thicken a cut and which does which? Thanks for all your time/effort in de-mystifying this crazy game.

dr_dave said:

Agreed. But you seem to giving more credence to "old school" opinions and myths, rather than to current modern evidence-based understanding.
Regards,
Dave

Click to expand...

Miyagi say to Daniel San........."things not always as they seem"
:smile: