Aiming systems

[av84fun]

JAL...Your system uses a 30 degree cut for all four shots. Whatever words you've chosen to specify the aim direction, it still amounts to a 30 degree cut, ignoring throw. With throw, the actual cut angle is reduced to something less than 30 degrees.

THANKS for the trouble you took to calculate those angles but almost certainly due to my own problems with explaining the system, your presumption that the system results in a 30 deg. cut for all shots is not not correct.

You are concluding that by aiming the tip at the same place on the OB for all 3 shots produces the same cut angle is where we are having the disconnect.

Let me see if I can get us on the same page. First, if you aim the cue tip at a given shot and shoot that identical shot multiple times then, of course, you will get the same cut angle every time.

BUT the HUGE DIFFERENCE is that you are NOT shooting the same shot multiple times...because the CB is moved for all shots!

Given that the CB has moved and the OB has not, then the ONLY way to get the same 30 deg. cut would be to aim the tip at a DIFFERENT place on the OB!

I JUST went to my table...set up the 3 shots and didn't even bend over the shot. I just stood behind the shots and leveled the cue one handed to "aim" the tip at the half on/half off sight picture and then placed the cue behind the second and third shots and I could SEE that shot angle declining. Just try that. It is WIERD if you don't see the cut angles reduce and I have no explanation for that other than eye dominance issues I suppose. But I have SEVERAL members with whom I am carrying on pm dialogs who report that it's workin' for them too so its just strange.

Regarding geometry being the antithesis of dogma I disagree...dogmatically. (-:

In some usage, dogma is considered both authoritative and arrogant but I certainly did not mean to assert arrogance on your part.

The version of dogma I ascribed to geometry conforms to this definition:
"An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. "

Those espousing arguments based on geometry do so authoritatively and with the belief that what they say is absolutely true. With great respect, I think you posts on this topic exactly conforms to the above definition and is not at all the antithises of it.

If you reply to this...please save me some time. Are you one of the few who actually tried the 3 shot series?

Finally, your wrote..."Jim, here is a look at how throw would affect your example (four balls on the center string)."

Thanks, for that analysys. But you didn't specify how much throw was being induced. At Koehler's maximum of 11 degrees under the worst conditions, all 3 shots go easily. If the difference is split between the extremes of 4-11 degrees to say 7, then all 3 also go given your 1/8 ball tolerance for striking a point.

In addition, as the shot length moves back from the 3'+ distance from the spot, then the throw factor (in degrees) and be reduced to something less than the 7 degrees mentioned above. Correct?

But I am not basing my system on throw. I will say, however, that I don't recall a single post from the math guys even mentioning that geometry clearly does NOT perfectly predict the outcome of shots and in fact, prior to my posting of the Koehler data, I would have betcha a dime that some would have argued that raw geometry WOULD perfectly predict the outcomes....thus my dogmatic remark.

But Jim...here's the deal. Earlier, I set the CB on the head string...dead center and the OB on the spot and used TP 5 to cut the shot.

I would imagine you would agree that shot is not a hanger. I alternated between the right and left corners so as not to freeze either shot picture and drilled the shots 9 times out of 10 tries.

My guess is that most observers would agree that is no more than a 70% probability shot for most players. What would you say it is?

And that is the bottom line. I have SIGNIFICANTLY improved my shotmaking percentages via use of this system.

I appreciate your stating that it is by no means useless and it DOES have its limitations...a FEW more than I thought. But being imperfect does not mean that it can't improve the user's shot making percentages. If it did so by even 10% then every player in the world would be clamoring to learn it!!

I can't wait until DCC when I will stand 6 feet behind TOP shooters, with my BACK turned...have him/her aim the 3 shot series with a LaserCue so that there will be no question about where the tip is pointing and tell them EXACTLY to what spot on the OB their tip is aiming!!!!

FUN!!!!!!!!!

And I will LOVE the posts that will appear here....SOON!!!! (-:
(NOTE: I've already done it with a world champion which is not one of the least reasons why I am so sure it works...absent dominant eye issues...but WHY is works is unknown to me and also of almost no conern other than idle curiosity.)

Genuine THANKS for your comments Jim!!

(-:

 

[pdcue]

Quoting me A) Learning may be accomplished by both positive and negative example such that the proposition of wrong theories serve to reinforce correct ones and
B) The SEARCH for knowledge and means of improvement is noble in and of itself and should therefore be encouraged and not trashed with arrogance and condescension.

Would you agree with that?

Regards,
Jim


Quoting you...Would I agree? - No.

Well, that's sort of sad...no it is actually sad... because it demonstrates that your study of history is virtually non-existant since any such study would reveal that most of the great innovations of all time were contributed by people who were nearly universally criticized...IF NOT JAILD OR EXECUTED...by the vast majority of their contemporaries.

Do you know nothing about Bell, Beethoven, Einstein, Billy Mitchell, Galileo...pick a religious profet??? Too bad.



EXACTLY how many "good players" have you interviewed on that subject?

And how about GREAT players? How do THEY approach this subject and how many of THEM have you interviewed.

And if what you say is correct, why is it that practically every author of LEGENDARY instructional manual (and I own most of them) TEACH AIMING SYSTEMS/METHODS/TECHNIQUES?? Some devote WHOLE CHAPTERS to the subject.

Have you ever heard of Robert Byrne? Do yourself a favor and invest in his Standard Book of Pool and Billiards and note that on page 23 (in my edition) he discusses aiming systems!!! I have already discussed that such systems MAY IN SOME CASES BUT NOT NEARLY ALL be reduced to the subconscious but that the system is still their AND FUNCTIONING.

And with reference to you geometry devotees, let me quote directly from Byrne who wrote:

"While the geometric aiming method described in the first four diagrams is useful at first, you will soon discover that you must hit the object ball slightly thinner than indicated."

He goes on to discuss friction induced throw. So when you and/or Patrick pontificdate that certain shots CAN'T go due to the geometric PROOFS, we are left to agree with you, or Robert Byrne.

I choose Byrne.

So if YOUR learn nothing else from this thread...learn this...that you should refrain from making broad generalizations, citing them as fact, when it is OBVIOUS that you ar not in possession of anywhere near sufficient data to support your statements and are therefore, just expressing opinions based upon not based upon or supported by any set of data which you could produce.

Hey, opinions are fine. I have no problem with opinions. Have a lot of them myself. But I DO have a problem with the age-old tactic of less skilled debaters of attempting to pass opinion off as FACT which is demonstrably what you have done here.

Regards,
Jim

JIm

This might be the time to note we have come
full circle - full sprial.

Ironic that you chose to invoke the name of Bob Byrne.
Guess who Mr. Byrne seeks out when he feels the need for
guidance on matters billiardesque?

Hint #1 He was the first to point out your 'system' was rubbish.
Hint #2 He often plays with a Balabushka with no ferrule.
Hint #3 He's more polite than I, or my new best friend Patrick Johnson.

Dale

 

[pdcue]

\

This might be a good point<no pun intended> to interject
some clairifcation.

I think you do not fully understand the diference between 'aiming'
and 'sighting'[QUOTE/]

Now it is YOUR turn to munch on some crow. In fact, the verb forms of "aim" and "sight" are synonymous to wit:

v. sight?ed, sight?ing, sights
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eyes; get sight of: sighted land after 40 days at sea.
2. To observe through a sight or an optical instrument: sight a target.
3. To adjust the sights of (a rifle, for example).
4. To take aim with (a firearm).




Thanks for sharing!!!



No, by definition, you are wrong again. If you poke a ball placed onto a table after your are blindfolded you have not "aimed" sir.

aim (m)
v. aimed, aim?ing, aims
v.tr.
1. To direct (a weapon) toward an intended target.

You cannot direct a weapon toward an INTENDED target if you have no idea where the target is!



Cool. Whatever works.



Fine...and that only reinforces my earlier comment that ball pocketing methods that TODAY can be described as being based on feel or instinct are actually not. They are based on SOME SYSTEM that, over time, has been reduced to the subconscious mind BUT IT IS STILL THERE...IT HAS NOT VANISHED LEAVING YOU TO ONLY GUESS!



Whatever, but those phrases are all synonymous!!

system


Synonyms: scheme, arrangement, classification, structure, organism, organization, coordination
Synonyms: method, technique, procedure, routine, approach, practice

You're gettin in over your head Dale. (-:

Regards,
Jim

As if you had some clue.
So much reading of words - still zero grasp of meaning.

I had hoped my sample of shooting a basketball with a BB would
have been enough of a clue for even you. Once again, I overestimated
your ability to think.

To wit. Sighting and aimming while shooting a rifle<or BB gun>
are indeed, pretty much interchangeable.

Sighting and aiming at pool, are related, but, except in rare
circumstances, decidedly NOT interchangeable.

Perhaps we could get Bob Byrne to explain it to you.

Again, I mention these ideas only because many members follow
these threads - maybe some of the comments can be helpful
to players who are still learning.

Dale

 

[CaptainJR]

No, not at all and in the same spirit let me respond that:

My system DOES work in the vast majority of cases and you cannot, in good faith, argue that it does not because you haven't tried it.

Having said that, as I have already posted, since the system is based on "rifle sight" aiming, it is unavoidably subject to the vagaries of human vision that are WELL known to science and obviously cause certain people to obtain radically different "sight pictures" even when viewing the exact same objects.

I would refer to it more like ?shotgun? aiming. Hehe, (just trying to lighten things up a little with humor, just kidding there.) Yes, you are right about 'sight pictures'. You can set a rifle (without a scope) on a front and rear rest and different people will see it aimed differently.

So, it would be wrong...and I never have suggested that such a system must work for everyone.

Your bottom line is that eventually, aim becomes a matter of feel by which I assume you mean "instinctive behavior not generated by a conscious plan."

If that is not what you mean, I am genuinely interested in what you do mean.

But if my definition is close, then I suggest that a system proceeds any ability to aim by feel.

Yup, that's it. It applies to any system as soon as you start changing the tip position or using a soft or very hard stroke. The problem I see with your system is that using it you now add to those by also having to adjust your basic aiming point. You have enough to adjust for without having to adjust that as well.

But with respect, you haven't done any such thing. Please point me to any of your posts that I may have overlooked that proves anything about the system one way or the other.

You certainly have expressed your opinion and totally fine with me. But tell me, if you would, how many shots at how many angles at what lengths and positions on the table have you shot in an effort to test the system?

But you join a certain other poster in perpetuating the notion that even if you did test it, it wouldn't prove anything since the tester would just subconsciously shoot by some other formula.

That thesis suggests that the new student whose interests you attempt to protect should just bang the balls around until they start going in and then try to imprint that feel into their inner depths.

But such a thesis flies in the face of the way in which the most noted teachers of all time approach the issue of pocketing balls. So, exhibiting the same concern as you do about newcomers being led astray, let me suggest to them that they ignore all "shoot 'em until you get the feel" and instead go buy AT LEAST Byrn'es Standard Book of Pool and Billiards and Koehler's The Science of Pocket Billiards...BOTH of which discuss the use of aiming SYSTEMS.

And again, for those posters who have so vociferously PROVEN (in their own minds) that any system not based on PURE geometry CANNOT WORK, let me refer them to Byrne's discussion of collision-induced throw.

Moreoever, Koehler deleved even deeper into that subject. On page 40 (of my addition of "Science if Pocket Billiards" Koehler has a chart demonstrating that collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES even on clean balls which, on longer shots will cause a significant miss.

So, for those...including several in this thread...who propose that if a shot is not geometrically correct, it cannot go and if it is, it must go, have never heard of collision-induced throw or deny both Byrne's and Koeller's findings on that subject.

As a matter of fact, the reason that my system DOES WORK for the vast majority of shots (as recently edited) MAY be due to the influence of collision-induced throw. I have no earthly idea whether that is correct but it would certainly be worth investigation by you number cruncher types...and would be far more respectful of scientific study than merely denying the viability of the system based on utterly dogmatic theories about geometry in the face of advice from Byrne, Koehler and many others to the contrary.

Finally, since Koehler's work has been referred to here, let me pass on his advice to people, including one rather self-confident poster here who recommends the ghost ball method. About that method, Koehler writes on page 28..." This aiming technique is accurate and simple enough for beginners but must be modified slightly to achieve absolute accuracy."

I have not read ?Koehler?, but in my experience (nearly 40 years of shooting pool) collision induced throw only has to be considered on very slow (where the grab of the cue ball to the object ball) and very fast (where the blunt force of the speed) will induce some collision induced throw. Making the object ball cut a little less than what your aim.

So for you ghost ball proponents, when you fail to finish as high in your local tournaments than you would prefer, you might want to take Koehler's advice to heart and more thoroughly study methods that DO NOT rely on raw geometry...for the reasons cited above.

Ghost ball, well I use an advanced version of that on more difficult shots using contact points (points being plural. One on the object ball and one on the cue ball). On simple shots I just, well I guess you could call it a 'shotgun' type, where I adjust for what I want the cue ball to do and pull the trigger. I know it is in the hole. As far as the ghost ball, I do think it is the best thing for beginners. Most people can quickly understand it. The difficult shots are the problem (of course). When I say difficult I'm not referring to banks or caroms, I?m mostly referring to shots where the OBJECT BALL is a long enough distance from the pocket and reduces the margin of error. I think that anyone that makes an effort and spends at least a reasonable amount of time at the table will fairly quickly be able to make easy shots where the object ball it close to the pocket. So I think any aiming system used needs to be deadly accurate on 'ALL' shots. (Not just some or a majority of shots.) So when you have a difficult shot you know that if you execute correctly your aiming system will put the ball in the pocket FOR SURE. Emphasizing 'FOR SURE' brings up something else I?d like to ask. (ask not just to you but all writers here.)

I'm wondering how much the success or failure of an aiming system is based on the self-expectation of a player. At league night you here it all the time. A player will come to a difficult shot and miss. Everyone says 'that's OK, it was a tough shot'. As of this date, half way through our winter league season, shooting .804, I have the best average in the league. Not that I don?t make mistakes but the mistakes are usually in position rather than missing the shot. Ending up having to shoot a difficult shot. I contribute my high average to making the difficult shots. (I know that I have jinxed myself by talking like that. LOL) In other words when I?m looking at a difficult shot, it is also a 'must make' shot.

So I'm wondering how much of the 'my system works' is based on. 'I missed that shot but it is OK because it was a very difficult shot.'

Tell me your system works when you are making the large majority of your difficult shots.

r,
JR

 

[Patrick Johnson]

av84fun:
I can read so I do know "what you say."

No, you don't. You haven't followed a word of it.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES

Do you think the amount of throw differs for your 4 proposition shots? If it does, why? If it doesn't, how do your shots produce different cut angles?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Here's one last attempt to show you what you're misunderstanding about throw: when you move the CB, both the "theoretical cut angle" (30 degrees for a half ball aim) and the actual cut angle (say 26 degrees after throw) remain the same in relation to the CB/Ghost CB aim line. So moving the cue ball moves not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also both the 30-degree theoretical cut angle and the 26-degree actual OB path. In other words, throw doesn't help you here.

In your proposition shot the OB and the pocket (my "target") don't move, so I indicate that with pins through them. But the angle of the shot does change, which I show by rotating the whole thing around the pinned-in-place OB. You should be able to see (although I somehow doubt you will even with pictures) that moving the CB changes not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also the OB path - by exactly the same amount. Throw doesn't change that.

Can you read what my words say? Can you see what the picture says? Do you finally get my meaning? Throw doesn't help you here.

pj
chgo

 

[kildegirl]

pool

Hi Bob: Ghost Ball-Contact Point-Fractional-Math & Feel, not in any order...SPF=randyg

hogwash in spades

 

[CaptainJR]

Here's one last attempt to show you what you're misunderstanding about throw: when you move the CB, both the "theoretical cut angle" (30 degrees for a half ball aim) and the actual cut angle (say 26 degrees after throw) remain the same in relation to the CB/Ghost CB aim line. So moving the cue ball moves not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also both the 30-degree theoretical cut angle and the 26-degree actual OB path. In other words, throw doesn't help you here.

In your proposition shot the OB and the pocket (my "target") don't move, so I indicate that with pins through them. But the angle of the shot does change, which I show by rotating the whole thing around the pinned-in-place OB. You should be able to see (although I somehow doubt you will even with pictures) that moving the CB changes not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also the OB path - by exactly the same amount. Throw doesn't change that.

Can you read what my words say? Can you see what the picture says? Do you finally get my meaning? Throw doesn't help you here.

pj
chgo

edited something was wrong with my graphics. You would believe what I was seeing on my screen.

Anyway, now that I can see it. I like it. Although you were just talking about throw it also shows why aiming systems like this will not work all the time.

Very good
JR

 

[Jal]

Hi Jim,

First of all, if no one has said so yet, thanks for presenting your system, and I think your description of it has been very clear. Your defense of it has reached heroic proportions!

JAL...Your system uses a 30 degree cut for all four shots. Whatever words you've chosen to specify the aim direction, it still amounts to a 30 degree cut, ignoring throw. With throw, the actual cut angle is reduced to something less than 30 degrees.

THANKS for the trouble you took to calculate those angles but almost certainly due to my own problems with explaining the system, your presumption that the system results in a 30 deg. cut for all shots is not not correct.

You are concluding that by aiming the tip at the same place on the OB for all 3 shots produces the same cut angle is where we are having the disconnect.

Let me see if I can get us on the same page. First, if you aim the cue tip at a given shot and shoot that identical shot multiple times then, of course, you will get the same cut angle every time.

BUT the HUGE DIFFERENCE is that you are NOT shooting the same shot multiple times...because the CB is moved for all shots!

Given that the CB has moved and the OB has not, then the ONLY way to get the same 30 deg. cut would be to aim the tip at a DIFFERENT place on the OB!

I agree that our usage of "cut angle" may be the cause of some of the problems. The standard meaning of cut angle is the angle between the cueball's initial (pre-impact) direction and the object ball's post-impact direction. We can distinguish between the "geometric cut angle", which ignores throw and a very slight compression effect, and the actual or "physical cut angle", which does not ignore them. I don't mean to sound 'dogmatic' about this , just reporting what people mean by it, most of the time anyway.

If you aim the center of the cueball at the edge of the object ball, for instance, that always results in a 30 degree geometric cut angle no matter where the cueball is located relative to the object ball. Throw will reduce this a little (unless you are using sufficient outside english). For the four shots in your example, the numbers I listed above are the geometric cut angles necessary for center pocket. If I understand correctly, your TP3 says to aim the center of the cueball at the edge of the object ball in all four cases (I know, one of them has been dropped from the list). Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I JUST went to my table...set up the 3 shots and didn't even bend over the shot. I just stood behind the shots and leveled the cue one handed to "aim" the tip at the half on/half off sight picture and then placed the cue behind the second and third shots and I could SEE that shot angle declining. Just try that. It is WIERD if you don't see the cut angles reduce and I have no explanation for that other than eye dominance issues I suppose. But I have SEVERAL members with whom I am carrying on pm dialogs who report that it's workin' for them too so its just strange.

The shot angles should reduce as you move from cueball #2 to #4 if you want to pocket the ball. But, if we understand it, your system is recommending aiming the cueball at the edge of the object ball for all three shots, thus producing the same 30 degree cut angle (a little less with throw considered).

Regarding geometry being the antithesis of dogma I disagree...dogmatically. (-:

In some usage, dogma is considered both authoritative and arrogant but I certainly did not mean to assert arrogance on your part.

The version of dogma I ascribed to geometry conforms to this definition:
"An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. "

Those espousing arguments based on geometry do so authoritatively and with the belief that what they say is absolutely true. With great respect, I think you posts on this topic exactly conforms to the above definition and is not at all the antithises of it.

I think the definition in my dictionary stresses the arrogant or "absolutely true" part a little more, but I'll plead guilty to coming across as per your cited definition. I appreciate you're not pinning the arrogant connotation on me. Nor do I think any of the others deserve it, though we may seem a bit too "authoritative" at times. I think the thing which distinguishes it is that diagrams and formulas have been presented in good faith, exposed to the possibility of refutation. (I'll supply the calcs behind my figures for the cut angles if you like.)

If you reply to this...please save me some time. Are you one of the few who actually tried the 3 shot series?

Sorry, no table and I haven't been to the poolroom.

Finally, your wrote..."Jim, here is a look at how throw would affect your example (four balls on the center string)."

Thanks, for that analysys. But you didn't specify how much throw was being induced. At Koehler's maximum of 11 degrees under the worst conditions, all 3 shots go easily. If the difference is split between the extremes of 4-11 degrees to say 7, then all 3 also go given your 1/8 ball tolerance for striking a point.

A lot of work has been done on throw over the last few years, and a reasonable estimate for the amount of throw on a 30 degree cut (or around 30 degrees), is anywhere from near zero (a few tenths of a degree) to up around 4 or 5 degrees. This is for a cueball with no sidespin. You get the least on a high speed shot where the cueball has max topspin or backspin. The most throw occurs on a slow stun shot (no topspin or backspin).

So, to the extent you accept the figures I listed for the geometric cut angles for center pocket, you would have to increase them, the geometric cut angles that is, to allow for throw, since throw results in a smaller physical cut angle. But your system recommends a 30 degree geometric cut angle for all of them, if we understand it. That will only work for shot #4 since the 30 degrees will be reduced to something between 30 and 25, and the geometry calls for a 27.4 degree cut, plus or minus about 2.5 degrees.

In addition, as the shot length moves back from the 3'+ distance from the spot, then the throw factor (in degrees) and be reduced to something less than the 7 degrees mentioned above. Correct?

If you move the OB back along that diagonal impact line, keeping the cueballs in the same position, you'll need an even larger cut angle than the ones listed. Throw will be even more of a detriment, if I'm getting the gist of your question (which I'm probably not).

But I am not basing my system on throw. I will say, however, that I don't recall a single post from the math guys even mentioning that geometry clearly does NOT perfectly predict the outcome of shots and in fact, prior to my posting of the Koehler data, I would have betcha a dime that some would have argued that raw geometry WOULD perfectly predict the outcomes....thus my dogmatic remark.

Maybe. Can't vouch for everyone. But throw is so variable, depending on speed and spin of the cueball, you have to start with the geometry and go from there.

But Jim...here's the deal. Earlier, I set the CB on the head string...dead center and the OB on the spot and used TP 5 to cut the shot.

I would imagine you would agree that shot is not a hanger. I alternated between the right and left corners so as not to freeze either shot picture and drilled the shots 9 times out of 10 tries.

My guess is that most observers would agree that is no more than a 70% probability shot for most players. What would you say it is?

You'll have to point this one out Jim. I don't know where to begin looking in this thread (ie, where on the head string?)

And that is the bottom line. I have SIGNIFICANTLY improved my shotmaking percentages via use of this system.

I can see then why you are defending it so vigorously. It's amazing you haven't become discouraged and just said the hell with all of you; I wouldn't have made it past the first page of criticisms. Maybe you could refine it a bit on the basis of what has been said, if you should come to believe that what we are saying has some merit. Thanks again for showing us the system.

Jim

 

[av84fun]

pdcue...Well your post establishes quite a few things.

1. That you are rude...which you at least admit to.
2. That you're reading skills are deficient. Bob Jewett who EVERYONE knows collaberated extensively with Robert Byrne, never stated that the system was "rubbish." In fact, he has not had much to say. But what he DID say was:

"I think that any system that shoots balls to the back of the pocket liner is totally broken and not worth considering at all. If that is what your current system does, I feel that you should not waste our or your time with it."

Of course, the system does NOT attempt to do what Mr. Jewett suggested and so his comment was not applicable.

Finally, I find it ironic that my citing the work of Byrne and Koehler got under your skin so but it is clear why. Becauses it TRASHES your and your new best friend's slavish devotion to raw geometry which Byrne and Koehler teach BEGINNERS is not true!

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

pdcue..."Again, I mention these ideas only because many members follow
these threads - maybe some of the comments can be helpful
to players who are still learning."

Which players...do you think...are no longer interested in learning...excluding you, of course.

And I am SURE that the members of this forum sleep MUCH more soundly knowing that DALE is here to protect them.

ROFLMAO!!

Finally, as this thread demonstrates, when a FEW ACTUAL flaws in the sytem were pointed out...I READILY admited as much and thanked the poster. You on the other hand, when shown to be clearly in error, bare your (venomless) fangs.

I prefer manniing up to errors and not engaging in a lot of diversionary breast beating as you do.

(-:

 

[av84fun]

CaptainJR writes"
"Yup, that's it. It applies to any system as soon as you start changing the tip position or using a soft or very hard stroke. The problem I see with your system is that using it you now add to those by also having to adjust your basic aiming point. You have enough to adjust for without having to adjust that as well."

I see your point but at the heart of the system (forgetting about whether is works) is the irrefutable fact that when a shot is correctly aimed:

A) the cue tip points SOMEWHERE on the OB and as is true with my gun sight analogy. So THAT PART of the system that suggest pointing your "rifle" at a target on the OB and
B) There MIGHT BE a systematic way to benefit from the above. And a former Top 5 pro just pm'd me and joined SEVERAL others to report EXCELLENT results with the system. (Those people are electing not to post on the forum for obvious reasons relating to the arrogance and rudeness exhibited by certain "new friends" on this forum) (-:

"Tell me your system works when you are making the large majority of your difficult shots."

FASCINATING comments! THANKS!

WHAT IF the ONLY shots in my system that work are the shots that you find "difficult" and miss more than you would like???

Wouldn't a system that just HAPPENED to address your tough shots be VERY valuable to you??

So, to repay your kindness in giving your time to comment on this thread in a gentlemanly fashion, please feel free to pm me describing as precisely as you can what shots you tend to miss most often and I will correlate the system for you and let you see if it helps!!

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

No, you don't. You haven't followed a word of it.

pj
chgo

Well, so much for staying out of each other's faces. Fine.

But your above comment is PROVEN PREPOSTEROUS since, as this thread shows every clearly I HAVE followed your words and have ADMITTED that you pointed out a flaw in the system.

But your seem not to be man enough to do likewise. So you just keep generating your little diagrams...believing that geometry ALWAYS works...and keep missing on the numerous occasions when it does not. Your opponets will certainly appreciate that.

(-:

 

[av84fun]

Do you think the amount of throw differs for your 4 proposition shots? If it does, why? If it doesn't, how do your shots produce different cut angles?

pj
chgo

Blah blah, quack quack.

(-:

 

[av84fun]

Patrick, sorry that you wasted your time creating your little diagram...but I am sure you had fun.

Your PROBLEM...YET AGAIN...is that it doesn't address ANYTHING related to my system.

I point out with great authority that your previous little diagrams based on raw geometry ARE NOT always accurate due to the implications of collision induced throw and you respond with a chart attempting to instruct me on the implications of collision-induce throw!

Thanks, but I learned about that topic in 1978 when I read Standard Book on Pool and Billiards and again 1989 when I read The Science of Pocket Billiards.

(-:

 

[av84fun]

READ AND WEEP (or grin) as the shoe fits.
The following is an word for word copy of one of SEVERAL PMs I've received.

I am copying it here with permission. I have edited out her name so as not to expose her to the rudeness that has been directed to me but please note, she is a former Top 4 WPBA PRO.

Your Aiming System (Part I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi...I am a lurker on AZ and read with interest your posts on aiming. I am one of the WPBA "pioneers" having competed from the mid 70s thru the late 90s. I have won WPBA, state, national and world tournaments - all by "feel." As I am sure you are aware, back in those days information was a closely guarded secret. I always knew that there had to be mathematical systems for aiming but could never get anyone to share their info with me. I became pretty good at creating my own little "systems" for a zillion different situations and knew that speed, distance, power, english, etc. all had an effect on shots but didn't know how to mathematically manipulate the target and put it all together. Therefore, I never knew who was going to "show up" - the person who was "on" or the person who was "helpless." Having been ranked in the top 4 for most of my career was a pretty spectacular feat under these circumstances! I often wonder (and lament) what I might have done if I had had a baseline system for pocketing that I could manipulate for all these different variables.

(See PM Part 2)

In the mid-90s, I met a man who started sharing with me all the things I had spent over 20 years searching for including aiming systems. He has about 25 of these "systems", all of which are pretty much just different ways of doing the same thing...finding and hitting the proper spot on the OB. I use a combination of several, but the one I use primarily is the one which uses the cue stick like a rifle or as you put it, a laser beam.

When I saw another post on aiming, naturally I wanted to see what it had to say and was further intrigued when I saw that it uses the cue like I do. I printed out your post on the system and went to my table, threw the balls out and tried out your system. I don't know what all the others on AZ are doing, but I just want to tell you that your system is, for the most part, right on. There are a few more, as you call them, "exceptions." This, however, could be due to the fact that my table has 4.25 pockets.

Anyway, even with my previously learned knowledge, I still had a few shots that I had trouble "seeing" the right aiming target. Using your explanations regarding the LOC being on, between or past various diamonds, I no longer have any problem distinguishing which target to aim at!

\
This is the first time I have ever PM'd anyone on AZ but you were taking so much heat from all the morons on there that I had to PM you and tell you how much your sharing of this information has helped my target selection and consequently, improved my game.

Again, thanks and maybe I'll see you at the DCC this year...thinking about going!!!

_____________________________________________________________

THANKS for your comments My Fair Lady!!!! (-:

Regards,
Jim

 

[pdcue]

Here's one last attempt to show you what you're misunderstanding about throw: when you move the CB, both the "theoretical cut angle" (30 degrees for a half ball aim) and the actual cut angle (say 26 degrees after throw) remain the same in relation to the CB/Ghost CB aim line. So moving the cue ball moves not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also both the 30-degree theoretical cut angle and the 26-degree actual OB path. In other words, throw doesn't help you here.

In your proposition shot the OB and the pocket (my "target") don't move, so I indicate that with pins through them. But the angle of the shot does change, which I show by rotating the whole thing around the pinned-in-place OB. You should be able to see (although I somehow doubt you will even with pictures) that moving the CB changes not just the CB/GhostCB aim line, but also the OB path - by exactly the same amount. Throw doesn't change that.

Can you read what my words say? Can you see what the picture says? Do you finally get my meaning? Throw doesn't help you here.

pj
chgo

P. J.,

This was the kind of thing I had in mind when i alluded
to the possible value of threads for newer player still
seeking information.

As for trying to educate the Aviator:
I've decided my time would be more productively
spent in solitary confinment with Fast Larry.

Dale<where oh where is Smorg when we need him - imo>

 

[pdcue]

pdcue...Well your post establishes quite a few things.

1. That you are rude...which you at least admit to.
2. That you're reading skills are deficient. Bob Jewett who EVERYONE knows collaberated extensively with Robert Byrne, never stated that the system was "rubbish." In fact, he has not had much to say. But what he DID say was:

"I think that any system that shoots balls to the back of the pocket liner is totally broken and not worth considering at all. If that is what your current system does, I feel that you should not waste our or your time with it."

Of course, the system does NOT attempt to do what Mr. Jewett suggested and so his comment was not applicable.

Finally, I find it ironic that my citing the work of Byrne and Koehler got under your skin so but it is clear why. Becauses it TRASHES your and your new best friend's slavish devotion to raw geometry which Byrne and Koehler teach BEGINNERS is not true!

Regards,
Jim

I'll say it real slowly...

R-e-a-d-i-n-g w-i-t-h c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n

Look into it, could do you a world of good.

Dale<next week we can talk brane theory>

 

[pdcue]

pdcue..."Again, I mention these ideas only because many members follow
these threads - maybe some of the comments can be helpful
to players who are still learning."

Which players...do you think...are no longer interested in learning...excluding you, of course.

And I am SURE that the members of this forum sleep MUCH more soundly knowing that DALE is here to protect them.

ROFLMAO!!

Finally, as this thread demonstrates, when a FEW ACTUAL flaws in the sytem were pointed out...I READILY admited as much and thanked the poster. You on the other hand, when shown to be clearly in error, bare your (venomless) fangs.

I prefer manniing up to errors and not engaging in a lot of diversionary breast beating as you do.

(-:

Is it your contention that there are NO players who have mastered the
skill of aimming?

If so, why is that?

Dale