10 Reasons Why the HALF-BALL HIT is so Important

Patrick Johnson said:
More from your psychophant archive, huh? I might be flattered if you had a clue.

None of those ancient posts say I didn't use feel at all - just that I didn't use only feel - that's still the case (for you too). You'd already know this if you actually read them instead of just looking for trigger words to weaponize. Of course, you'd also need to understand them and be honest about it... not really your skill sets.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
ROTFLMAO! Those posts didn't say that you used feel at all because you DIDN'T. What you were touting is the fact that you specifically used contact points, over and over and over again. Don't worry, there's one where you actually knocked feel.
I don't have time now but I'll find it tomorrow.
There are NO TRIGGER WORDS and nothing has been edited. Those are all YOUR thoughts and actions written in there as you posted it.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
ROTFLMAO! Those posts didn't say that you used feel at all because you DIDN'T. What you were touting is the fact that you specifically used contact points, over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
I still use contact points with feel, just like then. Aiming with Fractions (and its derivative, CTE) also requires feel - some day you might actually realize that.

pj <- not holding my breath
chgo
 
Usually office hours are empty.

So what is on your mind? I am sure you have the topics lined up and categorized.
 
shooter_Hans said:
So essentially you guys are telling people to shoot shots on a 'degree' basis. So every contact point of the OB will throw certain angle. It is up to the shooter to determine the angle, and shoot at the contact point of the OB that is similar to the angle to the pocket? Geez I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say because I'm not getting it.

Too much mumble jumbo.
Click to expand...
Only detractors have the mumbo jumbo over contact points. A carpenter will rule and make pencil marks so he can make the one pass at the shot. Like the carpenters pencil marks, the contact points give a picture of the exact shot. It's the _shot_ you aim, not the points.
Back to the mumbo jumbo, many and even the prime detractors are in business trying to market their pool expertise. CG clears up the mystery of ball alignment in easily producible and envisioned "apparitions". The mindset is along the lines of basic drawing. I think you get this with your guessing method.
The mumbo jumbo is to poo the elementary nature of shot making and further obfuscate the 'learning pool experience' into a real gig. Not pooing education mind you. There is a ton of pool to learn and master. Stellar examples exist, most notably Dr. Dave who seems to have compiled the reference standard of pool for public access.
Back to CG. Yes the points are imaginary. They are also the best reference to visualise a shot.
 
straightline said:
Only detractors have the mumbo jumbo over contact points. A carpenter will rule and make pencil marks so he can make the one pass at the shot. Like the carpenters pencil marks, the contact points give a picture of the exact shot. It's the _shot_ you aim, not the points.
Back to the mumbo jumbo, many and even the prime detractors are in business trying to market their pool expertise. CG clears up the mystery of ball alignment in easily producible and envisioned "apparitions". The mindset is along the lines of basic drawing. I think you get this with your guessing method.
The mumbo jumbo is to poo the elementary nature of shot making and further obfuscate the 'learning pool experience' into a real gig. Not pooing education mind you. There is a ton of pool to learn and master. Stellar examples exist, most notably Dr. Dave who seems to have compiled the reference standard of pool for public access.
Back to CG. Yes the points are imaginary. They are also the best reference to visualise a shot.
Click to expand...
I’ve already play at the level of going straight to step 3. I can see the shots so I’m sort of guessing. Some go from 2 to 3.

On a difficult shot I may go to step 2 and then 3.

This is far more superior then contact points and angles. In step 2 you have found your point of contact. Exact.

CTE breaks slices the cue ball in sections. Not only that you have to remember angles and such.

The guess method is aim and shoot. The mind is much more free and you can play on instincts and much more of a natural player. I played in my teens and I’m a firm believer this is how you should play. You’re not explaining CTE to a kid. I can explain my guessing method to them. They will understand. CTE is for beginning adults.
 

Attachments

  • 8800DF30-8A7A-4C97-A185-7330215C27D0.jpeg
    8800DF30-8A7A-4C97-A185-7330215C27D0.jpeg
    73.9 KB · Views: 78
CTE is useful and should be a complimentary system in someone’s arsenal. No way should it be the main source of aiming. I can see if helpful on large tables like snooker but not on a 9 footer.

I will try it out tonight and give you my honest opinion.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: bbb
shooter_Hans said:
I’ve already play at the level of going straight to step 3. I can see the shots so I’m sort of guessing. Some go from 2 to 3.

On a difficult shot I may go to step 2 and then 3.

This is far more superior then contact points and angles. In step 2 you have found your point of contact. Exact.

CTE breaks slices the cue ball in sections. Not only that you have to remember angles and such.

The guess method is aim and shoot. The mind is much more free and you can play on instincts and much more of a natural player. I played in my teens and I’m a firm believer this is how you should play. You’re not explaining CTE to a kid. I can explain my guessing method to them. They will understand. CTE is for beginning adults.
Click to expand...
I understand that you've become adept and fluid at your way. It's how performance is achieved but the geometry of CG is more than establishing the points and then guessing. There are several more checks - equal angle opposites and reciprocal sections, plain overlap - incidentally the point of contact is the middle of the Venn diagram, and tangent matching - I like this last one for thin cuts and/or cuts at a distance. The idea is to verify exactly what you want to shoot before attempting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
I’m open to try it and I know my weaknesses as well so I exactly know how it will help.

It has solid fundamentals for sure.
 
shooter_Hans said:
CTE is useful and should be a complimentary system in someone’s arsenal. No way should it be the main source of aiming. I can see if helpful on large tables like snooker but not on a 9 footer.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you don't quite know what all there is to know and aren't proficient enough.
shooter_Hans said:
I will try it out tonight and give you my honest opinion.
Click to expand...
There are a number of top pro players and top amateurs who would strongly disagree with you since they use it exclusively for aiming. Also, a very high number of regular players like here who discuss and learn more about it on Facebook where they don't get infected by all the hatred spawned by a few to those who are interested and have it go unabated.
For proof, just continue to watch this thread and who is doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Patrick Johnson said:
More from your psychophant archive, huh? I might be flattered if you had a clue.

None of those ancient posts say I didn't use feel at all - just that I didn't use only feel - that's still the case (for you too). You'd already know this if you actually read them instead of just looking for trigger words to weaponize. Of course, you'd also need to understand them and be honest about it... not really your skill sets.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Here you are lying above while trying to save face, but here you are when you actually had more going in your thinking regarding FEEL. Read carefully, it only takes someone with 5th grade reading skills to see how you were absolutely anti-feel
as opposed to now since you have an anti-3-20-5 agenda which teaches specific visuals and no feel. The lack of sleep you get from obsessing over it must be accelerating your aging immensely. Don't worry, I have more so keep lying to save face.


From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Aiming Technique
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> David,

> If this method works for you, so be it. I don't believe there are too
> many players in this forum that will advocate such a method.

This variation on the "ghost ball" method of aiming is discussed fairly
frequently here, and I recall several posters being in favor of it. It
doesn't have a particularly bad reputation that I know of, though it's
not my preferred method because I like to aim more directly at the
object ball contact point. *******************

> The aiming method should be by "feel". You get a sense for the target, and shoot. (DAVID)

I don't agree. It's true that many players aim by "feel," but that **********************************
doesn't mean that every player "should" aim this way. And how is *******************************
anybody supposed to follow these instructions? "Get a sense for the *****************************
target and shoot?" What does that mean to anybody but you? Is it like ***************************
"You'll know it when you see it?" ***********************

I think a player should have an idea of what he's aiming at, and what
he's aiming at it. For instance, I aim the contact point on the cue
ball (which I have to imagine, because it's on the other side of the cue
ball) at the contact point on the object ball. To help me do this
accurately, I aim the cue stick at the point it would be touching on the
"ghost ball" (this is the imaginary ball sitting in the spot the cue
ball will occupy when it hits the object ball) as if I was shooting the
same shot with the two balls frozen together. (Of course, I adjust all
this for the combined effect of squirt, swerve and throw).


By the way, this isn't a complicated calculation of some kind that I do *****************************
while I'm aiming. I just try to point something (my stick and the cue ************************
ball) at something (the ghost ball and object ball), rather than just <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"feel" it. It sounds like David's trying to do that, too, and I say <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
it's the right thing to try to do. ***************************

Pat Johnson
Chicago

The question now becomes, how will Patrick Johnson try spinning this once again to say he was ALWAYS in favor of FEEL
and this post clearly points it out, when in fact it's ANTI-FEEL.

(Don't worry, more to come if you so choose and I hope you do)
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
Here you are lying above while trying to save face, but here you are when you actually had more going in your thinking regarding FEEL. Read carefully, it only takes someone with 5th grade reading skills to see how you were absolutely anti-feel
as opposed to now since you have an anti-3-20-5 agenda which teaches specific visuals and no feel. The lack of sleep you get from obsessing over it must be accelerating your aging immensely. Don't worry, I have more so keep lying to save face.


From: Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Aiming Technique
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Dale W. Baker wrote:
> David,

> If this method works for you, so be it. I don't believe there are too
> many players in this forum that will advocate such a method.

This variation on the "ghost ball" method of aiming is discussed fairly
frequently here, and I recall several posters being in favor of it. It
doesn't have a particularly bad reputation that I know of, though it's
not my preferred method because I like to aim more directly at the
object ball contact point. *******************

> The aiming method should be by "feel". You get a sense for the target, and shoot.

I don't agree. It's true that many players aim by "feel," but that **********************************
doesn't mean that every player "should" aim this way. And how is *******************************
anybody supposed to follow these instructions? "Get a sense for the *****************************
target and shoot?" What does that mean to anybody but you? Is it like ***************************
"You'll know it when you see it?" ***********************

I think a player should have an idea of what he's aiming at, and what
he's aiming at it. For instance, I aim the contact point on the cue
ball (which I have to imagine, because it's on the other side of the cue
ball) at the contact point on the object ball. To help me do this
accurately, I aim the cue stick at the point it would be touching on the
"ghost ball" (this is the imaginary ball sitting in the spot the cue
ball will occupy when it hits the object ball) as if I was shooting the
same shot with the two balls frozen together. (Of course, I adjust all
this for the combined effect of squirt, swerve and throw).


By the way, this isn't a complicated calculation of some kind that I do *****************************
while I'm aiming. I just try to point something (my stick and the cue ************************
ball) at something (the ghost ball and object ball), rather than just *************************
"feel" it. It sounds like David's trying to do that, too, and I say <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
it's the right thing to try to do. ***************************

Pat Johnson
Chicago

The question now becomes, how will Patrick Johnson try spinning this once again to say he was ALWAYS in favor of FEEL
and this post clearly points it out, when in fact it's ANTI-FEEL.

(Don't worry, more to come if you so choose and I hope you do)
Click to expand...
How is it relevant at all to this discussion what someone said years ago? You seem very obsessed with trying to prove a point by quoting old messages to show Pat has changed his mind on something. No matter if he did or didn't, what's the point? As far as this original topic goes, go with what people (he and everyone else) say in this topic, and if it contradicts something they said years ago, that doesn't matter.

Imagine a man arguing with his friend about politics or something, and no matter what the friend says now, the man keeps bringing up the friends opinion from 20 years ago, fixates on it and refuses to focus on and discuss what the friend thinks now. Pointless and deceptive to say to least.
 
Oikawa said:
How is it relevant at all to this discussion what someone said years ago? You seem very obsessed with trying to prove a point by quoting old messages to show Pat has changed his mind on something. No matter if he did or didn't, what's the point? As far as this original topic goes, go with what people (he and everyone else) say in this topic, and if it contradicts something they said years ago, that doesn't matter.

Imagine a man arguing with his friend about politics or something, and no matter what the friend says now, the man keeps bringing up the friends opinion from 20 years ago, fixates on it and refuses to focus on and discuss what the friend thinks now. Pointless and deceptive to say to least.
Click to expand...
Imagine me arguing with you (not a friend) who joined here less than a year ago that knows nothing about the history of all of this but wants to stick his all-knowing nose in as if he does.
That's why I won't so save your energy in the future. You're now on IGNORE and vaporized for good. I see nothing of you.
 
Another thread overtaken by trolls. Good thing i got many of them on ignore but i feel bad for Dr. Dave. Half ball is one of most important concepts of pool IMO and apparently you can´t even say that when some are so butthurt like they been prison many years picking up soap.
I think if I was mod here i would give some of them warning and ban afterwards if they continue spam all scheibe they do.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Imagine me arguing with you (not a friend) who joined here less than a year ago that knows nothing about the history of all of this but wants to stick his all-knowing nose in as if he does.
That's why I won't so save your energy in the future. You're now on IGNORE and vaporized for good. I see nothing of you.
Click to expand...
We don't have to imagine it. We're living through it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top