Patrick Johnson said:
Whether you aim at them or not, they're there and you hit them, and there's one for each different way you have of lining up a shot, whether it's using the stick and balls or ball fractions or numbered points or what-have-you. Each different alignment is a different cut angle and therefore a different OB contact point.
Your system has 5 ways of lining up shots so it has 5 cut angles and 5 contact points. It's an inescapable geometric fact that with only 5 cut angles you'll miss 1/2 the balls that are 18 inches from pockets (generous pockets), 2/3 of those that are 27 inches away and 3/4 of those that are 36 inches away.
If you're not missing that many shots, then you're not sticking to the 5 system angles.
pj
chgo
Thanks for letting get back into the lead on the "you're dead wrong" score!
(-:
If you would stop with the slide rule stuff...which just compounds your earlier error in refuting my statement that raw geometry does not always work (as when various degrees of force are applied to the "angle in=angle out" banking theory) and just set up the spot shot I asked you to test, you would know for a FACT that your assumptions are utterly wrong.
As I am sure you know, the head spot is just under 3 feet from the ledge of a foot rail corner pocket on a 9' table...which is A LOT more than the 18 inch distance from which you suggest my system would miss 50% of the time.
Your problem is that the 4 shots in the example will go 100% of the time with ZERO subconscious variations.
Just this evening, I set up the shot...heavily chalked my tip to well mark the CB and stroked such that the chalk smudge appeared exactly in the center of my red triangle cue ball. So there was virtually zero cueing distortion.
Furthermore, I placed a ring binder reinforcer directly on the line my cue stick had to travel to ensure that I was stroking where I was aiming.
Then I shot the four recommended shots 5 tines each...moving the white ring to the appropriate spot for each of the 4 shots in the series. On ALL 40 shots, the chalk mark was dead on and the cue tip ended up EXACTLY over the white binder reinforcer.....EVERY TIME.
If there is a more scientific way to control the testing of those shots I would be delighted to hear it.
Since you don't seem inclined to test it yourself, I would be happy to meet you anywhere in the contenental U.S. and test those shots in the presence of a BCA Master Instructor as judge that the system was being shot as described....for $1,000 per 5 shot attempts at the 4 shots.
All five of each angle must go or I lose a bag. Total potential win/loss = 5 bags....CASH posted in advance.
Will you be at DCC or would you designate a proxy to represent you. Scottie would be a fine judge...and I hardly know him. He would probably recognize my face but not my name.
Or Bob Jewett would be totally acceptable as well...even better possibly...for you...because I have the sense that Bob has a healthy degree of skepticism about this system. But I would trust him implicitly to render a fair and scientifically based judgment.
If DCC is the venue, since I am going anyway, I'll give you the option of quitting after the second series.
Bet?
(-: