Aiming systems and Our President

[enzo]

thanks all for voting...

so, almost exactly 2/3 of the people out there think there are aiming systems that work. i'll keep what i think this result means to myself, especially since i didn't really define what "works" means exaclty.

more noteworthy, as was already mentioned, of the 1/3 of the people that think no aiming system works, only 2 of 20 voted for bush. haha, i love it and i think it speaks volumes.

feel free to keep voting of course.

 

[Dead Crab]

I voted for Nixon.

The only stupidity that trumps that would be voting for Goldwater. My parents did both.

Of course aiming systems work. If they didn't, the balls wouldn't fall in the pockets.

Peace is at hand....

 

[enzo]

I voted for Nixon.

The only stupidity that trumps that would be voting for Goldwater. My parents did both.

Of course aiming systems work. If they didn't, the balls wouldn't fall in the pockets.

Peace is at hand....

i don't think nixon was all that bad, i really don't. many men such as him do certain things to get ahead, he just got caught. now bush, there's another story.

 

[pdcue]

Don't forget "double the overlap" (or "double the offset" or whatever the hell it's called). That's as "correct" as the ghost ball and easier to see for many. And it has the advantage of being a two dimensional method, relying only on your ability to see the contact point and the "overlap" of the CB and OB. In fact, I think it's the only "correct" aiming method that I'd say is indirect enough to be a "system". I don't consider ghost ball a "system" because it's just a direct visualization of the actual ball alignments (like simply estimating the position of the CB contact point and aligning it with the OB contact point).

pj
chgo

Mr Johnson,

This reminds me once again of something you aluded to in the
org 'aiming' thread. Over the years I have wondered about the
diference between an aiming-system and an aiming-method.

There seems to be way too much overlap in terms, perhaps
because there is no clear definition. I toyed with the idea of starting a new thread. Any thoughts?

Dale

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
Don't forget "double the overlap" (or "double the offset" or whatever the hell it's called). That's as "correct" as the ghost ball and easier to see for many. And it has the advantage of being a two dimensional method, relying only on your ability to see the contact point and the "overlap" of the CB and OB. In fact, I think it's the only "correct" aiming method that I'd say is indirect enough to be a "system". I don't consider ghost ball a "system" because it's just a direct visualization of the actual ball alignments (like simply estimating the position of the CB contact point and aligning it with the OB contact point).

pj
chgo


Dale:
Mr Johnson,

This reminds me once again of something you aluded to in the
org 'aiming' thread. Over the years I have wondered about the
diference between an aiming-system and an aiming-method.

There seems to be way too much overlap in terms, perhaps
because there is no clear definition. I toyed with the idea of starting a new thread. Any thoughts?

It's pretty hard to make a clear distinction. The distinction I usually try to make is that an aiming "system" is an indirect way of doing what the ghost ball method does directly: shows you where to point the cue ball in order to hit the OB contact point.

The double-overlap method/system is less direct than the ghost ball method only because it adds the "artificial" step of centering the contact point between the edges (or centers) of the two balls. My method is even more direct than the ghost ball method: estimate where the CB contact point is (on the other side of the CB) and try to point it at the OB contact point.

I'm pretty sure every other way is less direct and therefore should be defined as systems.

pj
chgo