Aiming ain't Easy, Angles ain't so Hard!
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
Colin Colenso said:Ok, I'm am anti-Houleite now
Fact is I disproved the theory you put forth diagramatically, and on the table which is what you requested.
It seems that everyone who clings to anti-logic systems can't get past this point
Best of Winner's Circle Network with Lou Tice - 8/26/05 - "The Goldfish &
the Tub"
Today, I'll tell you the tale of the goldfish and the bathtub, and I think
you will find that it is much more than just a fish story.
Sometimes, the training and conditioning we receive in life helps us to be
all we can be.
Often though, it does just the opposite. Let me tell you what I mean.
Once there was a man who owned a pet goldfish named Solomon. One fine spring
morning the man decided it was high time to clean the fishbowl, but he
couldn't find a container large enough to put the fish in temporarily. So he
filled the bathtub with a few inches of water and slipped Solomon into the
tub.
When he came back about an hour later, he found the fish engaged in some
very thought-provoking behavior. It was swimming around in one little corner
of the tub, in a circle no bigger than the fishbowl. I think, in many ways,
human beings are a lot like Solomon the goldfish.
We learn certain habits and beliefs, which we get from our parents, our
friends, our teachers, and from television, and we develop certain
lifestyles. Then very often, when we get the chance to go beyond them, we
choose instead to remain in our tiny little comfortable corner of the world
even though it offers no adventure, no growth, or no challenge whatsoever.
But did you know that there are techniques you can learn to help you expand
your comfort zone safely and without undue stress? I have seen literally
millions of people who initially didn't believe they could take the risk of
personal growth and development. And when they do, they are invariably glad
they did. You will be, too!
Lou Tice
The Pacific Institute
www.thepacificinstitute.com
"TPI teaches people how to manage change, set and achieve goals, lead more
effectively, and think in ways that create success."
Jeff Livingston
Fred Agnir said:
Problem is to pick out the right one. Some of these systems are incredibly limiting to the players ability to advance. A system that does not encourage a player to see the entire shot is by far handicapping the player. Latter he will have to change his system once again, only to learn advanced capabilities. Next is "Beyond the System", where a player needs to develop the minds ability to feel the execution based upon variables as I mentioned before - dirty balls, humidity and english. These can not be measured as they are based upon feel.
I mentioned in the other thread about teaching someone to through a curve in baseball. The system is easy, but to effect the curve as desired requires consideration to the variables such as temperature and humidity, and how my curve will react. These are "Feel" and not system. It is the result of experience gained over time.
drivermaker
Banned
Boro Nut said:
If he feels a pleasant glow of well being tonight it'll probably be because he's catching a hummer.
In your case, after the toasting is over, you too will probably experience a pleasant glow but I have a feeling it'll be from olive oil on the old baloney...Boro.
LastTwo said:
Last Two,
I disagree.
Fred stated his aiming mechanism. Point through the cue, 3/4 of centre for a fine cut at the contact point. This is something that can be diagrammed for pots as I did.
I showed clearly that at different distances, on extreme angles this would not be able to lead to directing the cue ball to the required ghost ball position.
None of you seen to understand this, but it is scientific proof that the system is not based on perfectly sound physical principles. I've also staed that it will work pretty well for 80% of shots. But Fred continues to claim it works on all shots.
He is wrong, and if he used his system as he stated he wouldn't make fine cuts from very close and he would miss fine cuts from a long distance. But he cheats his own system and doesn't realize it.
The system has its use, but it is fallible. To them it is a religion and they cannot confront its flaws.
Go try for yourself using his method on an 80 degree cut at 3 inch, 20 inch and 60 inch distances. Just follow their formula and don't try to feel the pot. You'll see what I say is true.
I believe you think you are doing that.vapoolplayer said:
But if you really were, your accuracy would be in the +/- 3 to 5% region.
Usually alignment has a higher error rate than this, so you'd hardly notice, especially as the pockets are so large on pool tables. Most shots you can get away with this.
Hey Hal,Hal said:
You'll see I quickly edited my post. For a minute I thought you were HH.
So you're not, that's fine. You can ignore my comment to HH.
Peace be with ya
Boro Nut said:
I think you're right about wasting my time. It's like trying to pin down a piece of spaghetti with a chopstick.
Fred Agnir said:
Why don't you study the diagram and answer the question it poses, instead of calling me arrogant for putting forth a well reasoned argument?
The diagram clearly showed, following your physical parameters about where and how you aim and how you pivot, that the cue ball will not make contact at the same point at various distances. The reason I used the very fine cut angle is the same reason logicians use the reductio absurdium logic method. By taking your system to the extremes I highlight its inaccuracies.
Why can't you just admit it, or at least make a reasoned rebuttal? I've said your system works well on 80% of shots. It has its uses, but it clearly has its limitations. I am not being contrarian, but investigative.
You call this arrogance...osbserve the pot in your reflection!
I think an important idea that is usually omitted in these discussions is that a method or system will get you close and then you adjust. It doesn't help that some don't realize this and deny that they do. This is the major cause of these debates. IMOFred Agnir said:
Skeezicks- three angles my ass
Colin Colenso said:
well........its official........you are full of shit.
VAP
vapoolplayer said:
Good argument. Your passionate ad hominems are beginning to convince me.
Forigive my ignorance. I shall never make a diagram or investigate a claim ever again.
What's the big deal? If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't work for others, it's ok, you can still make the same shots. There's no perfect aiming system for everybody. One way to get rid of the need for aiming systems for 95%+ of the shots in pool is to practice shooting the shot enough that you virtually never miss.
Perhaps I'm to blame for not stating my points in a very clear way, and once people assume you are their enemies it is pretty hard to move forward.
In these aiming debates I have been accused of the following.
1. I am anti-systems.
But I am not and never have been. I just prefer a different system.
2. That I said the Fred's system cannot work.
I have said many times that this system would help many players and be satisfactory on most shots.
3. That I don't have an interest in learning or studying the system.
I have probed and read all thathas been suggested and linked to and done my best to confirm with Fred that I am understanding his aiming system correctly I have investigated the system down to the minutia and Fred stated that he wasn't interested in the minutia, because it works for him.
I have also suggested why I think you guys can adapt this system for all shots, by making some compensations, probably sub-consciously. That's not such a whacky idea. It is normal for players to make sub-conscious adjustments.
I've pissed people off by saying that Efren doesn't pot with as high degree of accuracy on straight to 1/4 ball shots with limited side english as most very good snooker players. Also that potting accuracy is not as important for US pool games.
You may disagree with my opinions, but the main arguments arising seem to be from a misunderstanding of my actual propositions.
It's a shame these threads have turned into a pissing contest...and I apologize for getting a bit narky at times. We are all capable of becoming a bit frustrated at times, especially when attacked.
In these aiming debates I have been accused of the following.
1. I am anti-systems.
But I am not and never have been. I just prefer a different system.
2. That I said the Fred's system cannot work.
I have said many times that this system would help many players and be satisfactory on most shots.
3. That I don't have an interest in learning or studying the system.
I have probed and read all thathas been suggested and linked to and done my best to confirm with Fred that I am understanding his aiming system correctly I have investigated the system down to the minutia and Fred stated that he wasn't interested in the minutia, because it works for him.
I have also suggested why I think you guys can adapt this system for all shots, by making some compensations, probably sub-consciously. That's not such a whacky idea. It is normal for players to make sub-conscious adjustments.
I've pissed people off by saying that Efren doesn't pot with as high degree of accuracy on straight to 1/4 ball shots with limited side english as most very good snooker players. Also that potting accuracy is not as important for US pool games.
You may disagree with my opinions, but the main arguments arising seem to be from a misunderstanding of my actual propositions.
It's a shame these threads have turned into a pissing contest...and I apologize for getting a bit narky at times. We are all capable of becoming a bit frustrated at times, especially when attacked.
Last edited:
drivermaker
Banned
SplicedPoints said:
How do you know it isn't the aiming system that you're ingraining by shooting that shot over and over that's causing the success? And as soon as you get lax and STOP or go to something else, you'll might very well start missing everything.
Shooting a shot over and over doesn't guarantee a damn thing because as soon as your stance changes inadvertantly by just a hair, your head moves 1/2" off to either side of your cue and your sight line changes, everything goes to crap. It's a bona fide method that KEEPS you in line...just like some people do it by having the cue in the cleft of their chin over and over.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
pete lafond said:
This is another good post. It also shows result oriented disciplines. In the end, understanding the minutia does not change the results. Results are the key. The coaching of baseball pitchers is virtually 100% inline in how I advise/coach shooters.
You do not have discussions with Pedro Martinez on his curve ball based on physics and geometery. The basic discussion is this:
"Your release point needs to be lower"
"Your dropping your elbow a hair too much"
"Put a little more pressure on the tip"
"Move over on the rubber"
That's the same type of non-physics, non-minutia discussion that helps players at the table. Don't get me wrong, I've discussed physics on these boards for longer than anyone except for a maybe three people (and Colin Colenso, who has done a great job at it isn't one of them). As a player, I enjoy being able to separate the physics discussions with the player discussions. Some people just can't do that.
Fred
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Boro Nut said:
So, you agree with my 100%, right?
I thought so.
Fred
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Colin Colenso said:
For me Colin, it's always the show of lack of an attempt to read with a lot of negative posts (reading/negative ratio). And, the lack of an attempt to try it on a table, something you certainly were guilty of (please do not deny this).
If a player reads, or calls, or PM's for followup, and tries it on a table, the success rate is so high that nothing negative can change that. If it doesn't work for you, there is absolutely no reason for you to even post about it other than "it didn't work for me." To even suggest for one second that "it doesn't work" period is brutal arrogance.
Why it works, it doesn't matter. Why would you want to talk someone out of making shots? If you want me to say that you make some adjustments after or before, I will. Sure. I probably am. But, this isn't a new conversation. When someone teaches ghost ball aiming, they seem to never discuss the fine tuning and fidgeting? Do you give the same amount negative minutia-driven antics to them? Doubt it, because it fits your system. You are not being fair. If you give the same treatment to our system, you must give the same treatment for ghost ball and "feel good" systems.
I await those scientific minutia posts against your own "I feel good, then I shoot" posts. Those, my friend, are probably the weakest aiming system description I have ever read. There's no meat to discuss, and you pick apart mine???
Fred
Fred Agnir said:
Ok, I'll do it for him. Didn't he say he was at home and going to bed when he woke up and tried the shot on paper? Then the next day he went out and tried it on the real table? If this is guilt then the term has been shit down the toilet.
Oh, and as for a 2-D drawing not being worth much. Bull fucking' shit. It is sooooo simple to get worth from the diagram. Simply set up the shot on a real table, as per the diagram, then look at it from a shooter's perspective (hint hint, Colin), as per the system people, and use those additional data to understand the shot better. Without the diagram, this would be hard to explain, unless in person, of course. Ergo, the diagram holds much value here.
Fred also said:
I think that separating physics discussions and player discussions is going the wrong way. It is the integration of things that builds higher values and more understanding and more control. Any system that helps one do that is a good system, imho.
Jeff Livingston