Aiming by Fractions.

The fractional aiming method can also be used to play safeties PJ. In "Play Your Best Eight Ball" I recall Phil Capelle stating that there are different hits on the object ball that is 1/2 ball hit, full hit etc. I think this is the best method to play safeties.
 
I find myself aiming to the back of the OB when playing safeties. I know there are many methods, but this seems to get me to where I need to go in a repeatable fashion. The other ways seem to be the "hard-way."
 
Yes, it is.
Then obviously you haven't bothered reading all that I've written.

Its also a way of creating any basic reference shot and controlling its position play. In the example that I gave to Dr Dave if you mastered those two shots, knowing the speed for both then find yourself in the middle of the zone then your brain has got something to work from.

The ghost ball system has no "problem with throw characteristics". No system adjusts automatically for throw; it's an adjustment that must be added to any system, including fractional aiming.

If a player using a Ghost Ball aiming method doesn't compensate for throw in his calculations and then actually hits where the Ghost Ball is on a semi-tight pot... he will most likely miss.

Of course throw exists during the pot for someone using fractional aiming however since fractional aiming is basically angle in-angle out... this angle out is just the net result of what happens when you aim at a consistant point on the OB and you have memorised that angle in your mind... the person doesn't have to adjust.

This is the problem when a Ghost baller tries to understand something which is foreign to him.

What's a "memorized angle"?

I would of thought this was an obvious term since its just plain dictionary english.

See the screen in front of you? Each corner of the screen has a 90 degree angle. Hopefully you will have memorised its distinct shape early in life. Thats a memorised angle!

Thats what fractional ball aiming is all about.

From your posts here it's pretty obvious that you don't know nearly as much about this subject as you think. Read more; talk less.

pj
chgo

Obviously this statement is just trying to bait me but I'll respond civilly as I can.

Not one person in this thread has any contradiction to the pure logic that I have presented. Some people perhaps don't see the value in it that I do but there is not one solid arguement against anything I've said as not being completely factual.

The statement "Read more; talk less" has a certain sence of irony since you didn't read my posts which is denoted by the very fact you didn't understand my statement of it being more than an aiming system. I mean if you don't understand what a "memorised angle" is then how are you in a position to judge knowledge of anything to anyone?
 
Last edited:
To Mathew:

Just a friendly piece of advice. You will have more fun beating your own head in with a hammer than arguing this stuff with these people. You need to learn that you are not worthy and should immediately cease with this senseless talk of aiming systems and how they can improve your game. Unless you have 3 specific letters following your name your opinion is not wanted.

Kind regards,
Common Sense :D
 
To Mathew:

Just a friendly piece of advice. You will have more fun beating your own head in with a hammer than arguing this stuff with these people. You need to learn that you are not worthy and should immediately cease with this senseless talk of aiming systems and how they can improve your game. Unless you have 3 specific letters following your name your opinion is not wanted.

Kind regards,
Common Sense :D

LOL

But seriously, 6 pages in and I still can't really get to the meat of the subject which I wanted to go to which was the reference shots which I thought would of brought a huge amount of discussion...
 
LOL

But seriously, 6 pages in and I still can't really get to the meat of the subject which I wanted to go to which was the reference shots which I thought would of brought a huge amount of discussion...

Nope, but you may get a HUGE headache though.
 
. . .3 specific letters following your name . . .

Are those PPP. . .Professional Pool Player?

But seriously. . .the meat of the subject . . .was the reference shots which I thought would of brought a huge amount of discussion...

Is the request to discuss 1/4 ball reference shots? Uh, yea, sure that is a good foundation. Maybe 1/8th ball reference shots might be better as a minimum number, but regardless. . .How does one exactly setup 1/4 ball reference shots for practice?
 
I'm pretty sure I'd rather hear the advice from Reyes. For a "geek" you're an awfully poor writer and speller. 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"). Your theory may somehow prove useful if you could figure out how to explain it. 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. I would suggest working on your academic ability (I see no "geek" in your writing or thinking) and especially on your socio-political interactions with others (I certainly recognize the "geek" here). 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." 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. Based on this I doubt I'd have a difficult time introducing a new theory of gravity just as I write this.

I have been browsing this site for months and have only now been inspired to deliver my first post. There are many extremely capable and knowledgable players on this site and I feel embarassed for you and this attempt to revolutionize the knowledge base here.
 
Its also a way of creating any basic reference shot and controlling its position play.

I see what you're talking about now, but your terminology is hard to follow. What do you mean by "Its also a way of creating any basic reference shot"? Aren't the basic reference shots defined by the system? What do you "create"?

Me:
The ghost ball system has no "problem with throw characteristics". No system adjusts automatically for throw; it's an adjustment that must be added to any system, including fractional aiming.

I see now what you were trying to say about fractional aiming including compensation for throw. That's a good observation that I hadn't thought of.

This is the problem when a Ghost baller tries to understand something which is foreign to him.

Is "ghost balling" the only alternative to fractional aiming?

... a memorised angle!

Thats what fractional ball aiming is all about.

This is the clearest and truest thing you've said.

Not one person in this thread has any contradiction to the pure logic that I have presented.

I'll bet we just define certain things differently - "pure logic" for instance.

I mean if you don't understand what a "memorised angle" is then how are you in a position to judge knowledge of anything to anyone?

LOL. Failed the oldest test in the book.

pj
chgo
 
The fractional aiming method can also be used to play safeties PJ. In "Play Your Best Eight Ball" I recall Phil Capelle stating that there are different hits on the object ball that is 1/2 ball hit, full hit etc. I think this is the best method to play safeties.

Now that you point it out, I'm sure you're right that fractional aiming's "approximation" approach could also help to learn CB paths.

pj
chgo
 
I'm out. This thread has gone from a flame directed at a blowhard to just plain boring.:boring2::boring2: Try again next week!

Am I missing something?:angry:

:thumbup:
 
To Mathew:

Just a friendly piece of advice. You will have more fun beating your own head in with a hammer than arguing this stuff with these people. You need to learn that you are not worthy and should immediately cease with this senseless talk of aiming systems and how they can improve your game. Unless you have 3 specific letters following your name your opinion is not wanted.

Kind regards,
Common Sense :D

huh?

................
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Charter Member ASS club (Aiming Systems Suck)

Oh goody, yet another head bashing, insulting, I'm right, you're wrong, waste of time and brain cells.
sorry I missed it. NOT :boring2::boring2::boring2::boring2::boring2:

Dick <-- would rather be "water boarded" than read an aiming system thread. :eek:

Dick
 
What works for some....

So far, about the only things I have to agree with are that there are different aiming systems. The one Matt subscribes to works for him. It may work for you, it may not. He is definitely dogged in his views, and at times that can be abrasive.
I know several people that use a fractional aiming system and it works for them. I do not. I use a modified ghost ball system that works very well for me. I have a very natural talent for seeing where the ghost ball will contact the table, then simply roll the cue ball across that spot. (I don't actually look at the ball when I'm shooting. I'm looking at a spot on the table.)
The people that I've showed this to find it simple and easy to aim. But it may not be for everyone.
Is it right? For me it is. Is it right for everyone? Probably not.
As stated, there are a lot of different aiming techniques out there. If you're not happy with your current aiming system, try one out. Try out the fractional system. Hopefully it won't take you the months stated at the beginning of the thread to pick up on it.

Matt.. you really need to learn how to take people when they refute your ideas. It was presented as though you know something that no one else knows or can do correctly. That's both arrogant and foolish to think that. And to me, that's how you came off in this thread.

So regardless of what you believe, and how passionately you believe it, if you present it the way you did, you will upset a great deal of people.

Pool is just a game. Enjoy the game. Play it as best as you can, as hard as you can, but still.... enjoy it.

Peace....
 
Back
Top