I'm pretty sure I'd rather hear the advice from Reyes.
You did. Just read the artical on aiming from Pool and Billiard magazine.
For a "geek"(,comma) you're an awfully poor writer and speller.
Enough said!
You also have an obvious lack of academic class when attacking a school of thought (and even worse: individual members of it) at the onset of your "artical" with no refutation whatsoever (unless perhaps these gentlemen live in some sci-fi "Matrix" you indeed alone live in "reality").
This just makes no sense whatsoever. How is attacking the way a "school of thought" thinks about the fractional aiming technique and the way they present it somehow makes me devoid of academic class?
All I've basically said is if you aim at a consistant point of the OB you get a consistant angle. If thats a little above your head perhaps you should watch this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mwm...9F5ACE4D1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1
Your theory may somehow prove useful if you could figure out how to explain it.
There is a difference between theory and fact. If you think that aiming at a consistant point on the OB produces a consistant angle is somehow a theory then perhaps you should take up a new game like tic tac toe.
I sure hope that those months you spent waiting to remove this from your chest weren't spent drafting and revising your language and ideas.
Trust me, your writing style sucks and is not your place to critique.
The difference between me and you is that I write very fast and quickly and I'm going to make mistakes because I don't care about doing everything in a grammatically perfect manner. All I do is type as fast as I talk and I can write perfectly when I choose.
On the other hand in critiquing me on my English, I would of expected your post to be something lucid, well structured and grammatically perfect and you failed on all counts. Also your paragraphs do not split up subject matter properly and you completely use brackets incorrectly.
Now, I don't really care to be honest because I understand everything your saying perfectly but you should learn not to be a hypocrit and practice what you preach if your going to be anal about the English language.
I do believe that you have failed to accomplish anything useful and as for myself - I'll keep with Joe Tucker's method. His indeed is "the definition of accuracy."
I haven't researched Joe Tuckers system in any depth, however, is exactly the same system that was written by Mosconi with the added twist of the Numbered Balls.
Now I don't exactly think that it is without any merit whatsoever, however geometrically its just a different way at percieving Ghost Ball and if performed perfectly will miss a semi-tight shot because it doesn't account for contact induced throw.
Now as I said - I haven't looked indepth about his product and it might be a great product but that would be my primary concern about buying it if I was a consumer.
However, since you later go on to say this is your first post, it seems like your plugging his product.
In the future, when you attempt to discredit longstanding theories (I honestly don't know who the two you referenced are), you might want to avoid the "they're-wrong-and-I'm-right" argumentative strategy.
Contact induced throw isn't a theory but a fact that has been known for a very long time. You fail to grasp the difference between fact and theory.
Based on this I doubt I'd have a difficult time introducing a new theory of gravity just as I write this.
Notice that theory is used when describing the reason behind why gravity exists however gravity itself is an observable fact.
I have been browsing this site for months and have only now been inspired to deliver my first post.
I have a genuine reason for wanting to come right out with this topic because it means something to me. My passion is obvious and a perfectly valid reason after the infuriation of reading peoples explanation of fractional aiming.
In contrast, suddenly becoming inspired to correct my grammer, plug a product, not giving a single arguement and being the embodiment of negativity places you either as a troll and/or having a hidden agenda.