Bump to the very top......
Bumpp.... bump.... bump.....
Bumpp.... bump.... bump.....
aiming
- Thread starter berlowmj
- Start date
Love The Game said:
Love,
In Pat's defence<cringe>, knowing and doing are not the same thing.
As I am sure, you already understand. The fact that someone is not
a very accomplished player, doesn't prove that his opinions are
not correct, nor that his knowledge is lacking.
I would expect that the BCA Master instructors would be quick to
admit that ther ability to execute is far below that of many, many
players.
If I have read between the lines..., the many, many lines of PJ's
arguement, I think he believes that
'perfect aim = perfect result, guarenteed' so, if you missed
it must be because your aim is wrong.
IMHO everybody else who can run three balls knows better.
Dale<ocasional runner of more than 3>
That sounds much too serious (and expensive) for me. Do you ever just play for the fun of it? If so, let me know when you're coming - then you can tell everybody here how much better you are. That'll show me.Love The Game said:
pj
chgo
pdcue said:
Agreed. I'm already giving it a rest..
I've been through the "blame the system" stage mysef... I'm just trying to offer my views... Learning this game is a long process, I'm still working on seasoning myself--as I expect that most of us are.
Reaper114 said:
Easier said than done. Say you take a shot down the rail. 1/2 diamond out from the side rail, half way between the corner and the side. Cue ball, opposite side of the table, just out from the side pocket. Or in fact, take any shot you want.
You look at the shot, find your aiming line (whatever system or method you use), then try shooting this shot 15 times. If it is that simple, you should never miss the shot!
If you miss, WHY? You know where the aim line is, correct? It never changed. But, there had to be something else involved for the miss to happen. Now it could be english, stance, stroke, as you stated, but, don't make it sound so simple.
Ever see a pro miss a easy shot? I have watched many a pro shoot and many a match and believe you me, I have never missed a shot from the sidelines...
I batting a thousand from there. I can probably make every shot that a pro can, just not as consistent as they do...
That's why I am not in their league.I think any aiming technique you use, whatever "system" you use, (and yours is also a system with the center line aiming method) is beneficial to excel in the game. But, it is only a part of the whole package.
I appreciate you trying to understand what I'm saying, but that's not it. The only thing I've ever "argued" about Hal's system is that what we're able to read about it doesn't work geometrically and nobody is able (or willing?) to show otherwise.
If some of the people who claim it works so well (some of whom sell versions of it) would just step up and describe it, even in general terms, all the heat would probably dissipate - but none of the system's promoters seem willing to do that. Why is that? That's a natural question, but it's met with such animosity that it only raises the question to a higher level - why all the defensiveness?
pj
chgo
rukiddingme said:
If you listen to HH, he will tell you that pro so and so uses his system. When you ask him how he knows this (yes, I've spoken to him and asked him this very question), he back peddles and offers no substantive evidence to support his claim.
Lou Figueroa
This is really just a matter of semantics and not worth much more discussion here. I only mean that nobody can be absolutely certain that how he has aimed a shot is perfectly accurate, because there aren't any marks on the balls to tell you where to hit them.
For instance, when you aim at the contact point on the object ball you're not aiming at a visible mark on the ball; it's just your estimation of where it is. Your estimation of that is pretty bad when you're a beginner and really good when you're a pro, but it's still just different degrees of estimation.
If that doesn't make sense to you, then we'll just have to agree that we don't understand each other and move on.
pj
chgo
i am really gonna try to make this my last post on aiming, with that said i would like to make 2 points (or maybe they are questions):
1) if you "aimers" put an object ball on the spot, put the cueball about 4 or so inches from it with a more or less 45 degree cut into one of the FAR corners..... why can't you make this ball every single time (assuming your aiming system works)???? shooting strait isn't a problem, you're so close to the ball. go ahead, make it every single time.... ill personally bet a lot that you can't. now please explain to me why you can't make it every time if the system works.
2) i just got a new tip, as is common after i do, i end up getting quite a bit less spin on the cueball (i get a lot more spin with my worn down tips). now, there is a certain shot we all get a lot, a nine ball near the spot almost strait in and the cueball is near the rail. i aim and to hit this shot very accurately, and i will normally hit it with about 1 tip of outside (natural) and medium speed. as i shoot this shot with my new tip i aim it EXACTLY the same as i did with my old tip (ie tip that put more spin on the ball), and it undercuts it just slightly..... in other words, i'm AIMING at the same exact spot but the english isn't there to slightly spin the ball into near the middle of the hole (this is something i hate getting used to when i get a new tip obviously). now, can you see (assuming all i've said is correct, which i assure you it is) how you can aim at a certain spot but it depends on more than just where you aim when considering the path of the object ball??? the stroke you put on it, your cue, your tip, maybe even the amount of chalk and humidity, and much more potentially all come into play. in other words, the contact point (or aiming spot) actually changes with these variables. aiming systems inherentely can't work unless they account for these things. that's one of the reasons why you can't make the shot described in 1 above every time.
the reason so many people think systems work is because people unknowingly correct for a systems imperfections and pocket the balls. further, systems give a sense of very valuable confidence to the player, increasing their accuracy, but it is false confidence, they just don't know it (more power to them). i assure you if you programmed a robot to hit balls according to one of these systems it would miss A LOT of balls.
anyway, i'm really gonna try to stay out of these from now on, i've said my peace. maybe its like abortion or the war, you just can't convince people no matter how good your argument.... it's hard-wired after childhood.
1) if you "aimers" put an object ball on the spot, put the cueball about 4 or so inches from it with a more or less 45 degree cut into one of the FAR corners..... why can't you make this ball every single time (assuming your aiming system works)???? shooting strait isn't a problem, you're so close to the ball. go ahead, make it every single time.... ill personally bet a lot that you can't. now please explain to me why you can't make it every time if the system works.
2) i just got a new tip, as is common after i do, i end up getting quite a bit less spin on the cueball (i get a lot more spin with my worn down tips). now, there is a certain shot we all get a lot, a nine ball near the spot almost strait in and the cueball is near the rail. i aim and to hit this shot very accurately, and i will normally hit it with about 1 tip of outside (natural) and medium speed. as i shoot this shot with my new tip i aim it EXACTLY the same as i did with my old tip (ie tip that put more spin on the ball), and it undercuts it just slightly..... in other words, i'm AIMING at the same exact spot but the english isn't there to slightly spin the ball into near the middle of the hole (this is something i hate getting used to when i get a new tip obviously). now, can you see (assuming all i've said is correct, which i assure you it is) how you can aim at a certain spot but it depends on more than just where you aim when considering the path of the object ball??? the stroke you put on it, your cue, your tip, maybe even the amount of chalk and humidity, and much more potentially all come into play. in other words, the contact point (or aiming spot) actually changes with these variables. aiming systems inherentely can't work unless they account for these things. that's one of the reasons why you can't make the shot described in 1 above every time.
the reason so many people think systems work is because people unknowingly correct for a systems imperfections and pocket the balls. further, systems give a sense of very valuable confidence to the player, increasing their accuracy, but it is false confidence, they just don't know it (more power to them). i assure you if you programmed a robot to hit balls according to one of these systems it would miss A LOT of balls.
anyway, i'm really gonna try to stay out of these from now on, i've said my peace. maybe its like abortion or the war, you just can't convince people no matter how good your argument.... it's hard-wired after childhood.
berlowmj said:
I think this is what an "auto-pilot" is.
Who aims the cue ball into the object ball?
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Hi Patrick,
Allow me to speak for Hal since I am unsure how often he visits the forum. What Hal is saying, and I can say this definitively, is that, it is his contention that you do not need a perfect stance to pocket balls. I know Hal would agree that it is the shooter that aims the cue ball, just that a perfect stance is not required.
As a side note, to demonstrate this while Hal was still able to move around a table, he stood with his back to the table and pivoted his upper body while shooting. With that said no one in their right mind would do this all the time but it was only to prove a point. Hope this clears up what he was getting at.
Regards,
Koop
Oh. Do all his students have to learn Halspeak?Koop said:
pj
chgo