aiming
- Thread starter berlowmj
- Start date
Really?kildegirl said:
How do you explain retards making balls?
Geez, sorry dude. The joke wasn't even at your expense. Guess I'll have to tread more lightly around here.
pj
chgo
pool
I was trying to be helpful. You deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. you were very helpfull on the forum. You have EVERYTHING to contribute to pool.
As a prime example, tell us what aiming system Efren and Bustamante use.
We are all ears. Inqutring minds want to know.
I was trying to be helpful. You deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. you were very helpfull on the forum. You have EVERYTHING to contribute to pool.
As a prime example, tell us what aiming system Efren and Bustamante use.
We are all ears. Inqutring minds want to know.
unknownpro said:
You need to rethink that. It's not the ghost ball method, it is any method that matches the CP's on both the CB and the OB. There's a more complicated but more accurate way to find the CP's than the ghost ball method.
In this diagram, the red line represents the desired path of the OB and the point where the line passes through the back of the OB represents the CP for the OB.
The purple line represents a line through the center of the CB that is parallel to the line on the OB. The point where the line passes through the front of the CB is the CB CP. If your draw a line in between those two points represented by the orange line and then shift to center CB parallel to that line, you have a perfect aimline that will go center pocket every time with the acception of really hard and really soft shots with side spin when using BHE. Harder shots aren't perfectly accurate because of CIT and soft shots for similar reasons.
If you combine this with proper fundamental mechanics and BHE, you have the potential for a great game.
BTW... There are many ways of getting to this including using parallel tangent lines, which IMO is easier to visualize, but it doesn't change that this is a very accurate way of determining aimline correctly.
Last edited:
Jaden said:
Hello Jaden,
I guess turn around is fair play, so it is now my turn to comment on your system. But before doing so, let me say what I think it would be appropriate for certain others here to say which is...if the system works for YOU...through YOUR eyes and you have tested so extensively that you know for a fact that it leads to playing at your near your maximum potential, then GREAT. I am GENUINELY happy for you and appreciate your generosity in sharing it with the community.
OK, now my comments. The fundamental problem with ANY system that requires the use of imaginary lines, spots, objects etc. is that it is well known that humans have WIDELY varying abilities to visualize imaginary things and even LESS ability to FREEZE those imaginary things in a fixed place.
If that was not the case, then without question, the ghost ball method would be irrefutably perfect. You can't miss a dead frozen combo unless you screw it up with throw but a ghost ball CANNOT throw a frozen object ball. Unless it is a real ghost I suppose.)
Just stand behind the LOC you need to make the shot. Imagine your ghost ball...freeze that image in your mental Power Point presentation...walk back to set up on the shot....chalk your cue...verify your OB route after impact...think about speed...and don't worry, the ghost ball is still where it is supposed to be because you just conjur up your power point presentation and off you go to the next world championship.
Your system involves 4 imaginary lines and 2 imaginary CPs which may not overwhelm your senses but would overwhelm a lot of people's.
But since it's working for you (which GENUINELY pleases me) let me ask you this question. Since you have very advanced visualization skills and the ability to lock them into your mind's eye...why wouldn't you just visualize the ghost ball...the position of which can be deterimined obviously just by looking at the intended OB path...freeze that image in your mind (just as you have to freeze the other imaginary things in your system) and then just point the cue so that the CB will strike the ghost ball dead on and thereby occupy its position.
Trust me, the above is a genuine line of inquiry asked with great respect.
Regards,
Jim
jimmyg said:
Hey jimmyg...Your comment is REALLY important and interesting because there is a large segment of the pool community that believes they aim by "feel.."
But let me offer this food for thought. It seems to me that people who think, on a conscious level that they aim by "feel" or "instinct" may not be doing so at all. Let me explain by using an example I used in another post.
When people apply the brakes on their cars, most of them would say that they do so instinctively and not based on any "system."
But as brand new drivers, most kids either braked too timidly and scared the hell out of thier driver ed teachers by nearly running a stop sign or they mashed the brakes and scared the hell out of the driver ed teacher.
So, the teacher, inspired for a strong desire for self-preservation, gave his students A SYSTEM which could be described as....Begin with imposing SOFT pressure on the brake pedal...then apply more pressure smoothly and continuously to achieve sufficient decelleration and then smoothly remove pressure as the vehicle nears zero mph...just before which...release all remaining pressure.
Sure, there is FEEL involved but there is also a SYSTEM that would lead to the acquisition of that feel FAR more readily that just putting people out on the highway to figure it out for them selves.
But again, ask anyone who has been driving for quite a while whether they have a system and they would deny that they do because the system has become subconscious. However, just because it is in the subconscious aspect of the brain doesn't mean it is not in the brain and is not being USED by the brain.
When a fledgling bird gets kicked out of the nest for the first time, it is irrefutable that it flys by instinct and feel....for everything else there is Mastercard....NO....I mean a SYSTEM.
(-:
Bob Jewett
YES! If we all had your communication skills, forums such as this would have massively fewer posts!
There is a subtly in your comment that has great importance IMHO and that is that "feel" is SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLIMENTARY to some BASELINE SYSTEM...however consciously or subconsciously resident in the brain.
Archers, whose shots are significantly affected by distance (trajectory) and wind would never hit a BARN if they knew nothing of the above variables and just flailed away for 50 years or so until...with no plan or system to account for the variable just shot enough shots from 10-200 feet in each of the 360 degree wind directions.
Rather they are taught or evolve their own SYSTEMS so that...for example...their system might be "In a quartering headwind from the left I need to shoot HIGH and to the LEFT.
That is a BASELINE SYSTEM. Then as you so correctly point out, the student evolves a FEEL for just how high and just how far left to aim.
But for people to suggest that they have no baseline system either have one that has been reduced to the subconcious or have nearly superhuman powers to imprint on their brains an nearly infinite number of variables.
And IMHO, the baseline systems are SO important because you can practice them in enormous quantity and KNOW that if the shot didn't go, you made a cueing error. Eventually, those baselines permit you to SEE that a shot requires a variation from the baseline.
Regards,
Jim
Regards,
Jim
YES! If we all had your communication skills, forums such as this would have massively fewer posts!
There is a subtly in your comment that has great importance IMHO and that is that "feel" is SUPPLEMENTARY AND COMPLIMENTARY to some BASELINE SYSTEM...however consciously or subconsciously resident in the brain.
Archers, whose shots are significantly affected by distance (trajectory) and wind would never hit a BARN if they knew nothing of the above variables and just flailed away for 50 years or so until...with no plan or system to account for the variable just shot enough shots from 10-200 feet in each of the 360 degree wind directions.
Rather they are taught or evolve their own SYSTEMS so that...for example...their system might be "In a quartering headwind from the left I need to shoot HIGH and to the LEFT.
That is a BASELINE SYSTEM. Then as you so correctly point out, the student evolves a FEEL for just how high and just how far left to aim.
But for people to suggest that they have no baseline system either have one that has been reduced to the subconcious or have nearly superhuman powers to imprint on their brains an nearly infinite number of variables.
And IMHO, the baseline systems are SO important because you can practice them in enormous quantity and KNOW that if the shot didn't go, you made a cueing error. Eventually, those baselines permit you to SEE that a shot requires a variation from the baseline.
Regards,
Jim
Regards,
Jim
SpiderWebComm said:
Spider, having been ripped and torn myself regarding an aiming system trust me that I comment on yours respectfully.
First, if that is what you SEE and it works, then I know you won't let anyone talk you out of it as well you should not.
I set up a shot that is easy to explain. OB on the foot spot and the CB on the foot string to the right so as to have a cut to the left corner pocket.
On that shot, when I see the center of the CB aimed at the left edge of the OB, the shot misses to the left by about 3/4 of a diamond.
Rather, when I put the triangle of a CB on the TOP of the ball but angled to the right so it would occupy about the 1 0'clock position on a clock and then aim THAT portion of the CB to the left edge of the OB, the shot goes.
When lining up that shot, I see the center of the CB offset at least a half inch to the left of the left edge of the OB.
Trust me, I don't dispute that your system works for you becuase if it didn't, I am sure you wouldn't post that it does.
I'm just reporting what I see.
Regards,
Jim
Scott Lee said:Shows what you know Bob. Do some research. You'll find Einstein's "Receding Sphere Theory". He was a pool freak of the first order!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
And so was Twain around a half century earlier.
(-:
enzo said:
Of course, you are correct. Given cueing variables no system I know of works without adjustment for the variables.
But MY suggestion is that it is far better to have a KNOWN BASELINE from which to adjust!
My thesis says..."I have an exact baseline from which I will GUESS how to correct for any variables I am about to create with my cueing.
The "total feel" thesis...IMHO...says I am going to GUESS about the "no variable" line and then GUESS how to correct for any cueing variables.
I like my thesis.
And by "guess" I mean raw feel which I think is synonymous. Some people are GREAT at guessing though (but some actually are not guessing when they think they are)
Regards,
Jim
pdcue said:
Your post sound to me like you might want to adjust your meds. Why do you have to be so insulting to suggest that the man is "delusional?" (If the system is delusional then the user is too).
He stated flat out that he was not at liberty to reveal the ACTUAL system so how can you critique a system, the parameters of which YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW???
You also need to study up on collision induced throw AND the NUMEROUS variables that cause bank shots to vary CONSIDERABLY from your precious geometrics!
Bob Jewett states that from 6 diamonds there is a 1 degree aim variation. (If I misstate his comments then correct as required but there IS SOME margin of error which, if exceeded will cause the shot to miss.
WELL study up on CIT and you will learn that even on a fairly manageable 30 degree cut, the BEST outcome is for about a 2 degree CIT angle which will cause you to miss badly from 6 diamonds when you "pass muster" with geometry. GET IT?????
And that is the BEST outcome with highly polished balls with no chalk, talc or hand oil. (Science of Pocket Billiards, Koehler, Second Edition, 1995, page 40)
Further, your "geometric muster" gets "mustered out" on bank shots with respect to which cushion distortion, spin and throw can cause GROSS variations from geometric theory. Koehler gets deeply into that subject in "Science" and on that subject, Byrne writes "Because of speed, spin and throw, the various GEOMETRIC and mirror-image banking systems aren't worth much." (emphasis added)
(Advanced Techniques in Pool and Billiards, 1990, page 39)
But, hey, I am sure that you never leave shots requiring banks or cuts of more than 2 feet in length or more than a 10 degree cut angle and always play with perfectly polished balls never touched by a chalk mark or human hands so, I am sure you rarely miss based on raw geometry.
(-:
av84fun said:
Especially in 3d space......
Because using this system you don't have to imagine much at all. I said, there are many ways to use this system. That was just a way of illustrating geometrically that it is accurate.
For instance, a person who plays even average b speed, should be able to visualise the tangent line when looking dead straight through the ball at the hole. Where the tangent line intersects the OB line to the hole, (all of this is done in your head on the 2d plane of the felt mind you), is the contact point, (on the felt), of the OB. You can even use your cue held above the table to get a visual of these lines. IF you now draw that line back until it meets the CB, you now have the CP for the CB, (again, it is on the felt, a 2D plane). You're drawing these lines on the felt with your mind and the aid of your cue or whatever works best for you. But the key point to remember is that you are focusing on the felt, a 2D plane as opposed to the ball, a 3D object that requires phenomenal visual spatial acuity to do. That is why this system works better.
It is also important to note that systems like this one and many others work great if you find yourself out of stroke or if you are practicing and want to isolate problems with your game. I.e. if you want to verify that it is your stroke, your aim, etc.... that is out of whack. You can use a system like this or Joe Tucker's system, which is based on this same principle, to know that you are aiming correctly and then you can focus on your stroke/other fundamentals, etc. For normal play the goal would be to be in dead stroke without having to think at all, a zen mindset, if you will, but without the knowledge and the systems to help isolate what is wrong, unless you want to spend huge amounts of money on instructors that really know what they are doing and can help point on your flaws one on one, you doom yourself to hitting a point where your game will no longer improve by feel alone.
I appreciate that, it is sometimes difficult to get people on this forum to show any respect to anyone but themselves, but as the actors who worked with minnesota fats and willie mosconi said, "pool players have the biggest egos in the world by far".
BTW. I think I understand what you are doing with your system and I was able to duplicate it, but I have been working on trying to illustrate HOW it works on paper and I am dumbfounded as to how and why it works, but if you are doing what I was doing then it DOES work. I still don't get how it works and it's driving me friggin' crazy. It is fairly simple to do and I believe it has something to do with the various angles of perception distorting the true space locations in your mind. Again, other than knowing that it has something to do with distortions, due to angles of perception, I believe the analogy on sighting a gun is accurate to what I was experiencing, I don't understand the mechanism behind it, which is new to me, I usually understand most things that I endeavor to. Oh well, I think I'll just add it to my reportiore and chalk it up to the old addage, "It is only in discovering how little we know that we become wise".
Respectfully,
Jaden
JADEN///"BTW. I think I understand what you are doing with your system and I was able to duplicate it, but I have been working on trying to illustrate HOW it works on paper and I am dumbfounded as to how and why it works, but if you are doing what I was doing then it DOES work."
FREE AT LAST...FREE AT LAST...THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, I'M FREE AT LAST!
(-:
I just got back from JOB's here in Nashville where I met, for the first time, a member of this forum who WILL NOT post here for fear of the onslaught that you referred to above.
NICE young man who has a 9' Diamond at his house and wanted me to work with him on the same table at JOBs.
We went through an array of shots. I started out standing 6 feet behind him and when he got down on the shots, I told him from 6 feet away, where his tip was pointing relative to the surface of the CB.
Every time, he agreed and every time (except on a couple LONG shots where cueing errors led to a miss) but on the "test bed" shots he made them all.
And what frys my circuits is WHAT IF the system only worked on TWO TYPES of shots that give you trouble. What if it ONLY works on back cuts or on angles with the OB a ball or so off the side rail...where, for me, there is sort of an optical issusion.
And WHAT IF, it "only" improved your pocketing percentage by 50%...NOT 100%? Would ya buy that deal???
You would...but the STONEHEADS (and none of them know who they are) in some cases TRASHED the system BEFORE I HAD EVEN POSTED IT!!!
Thank God they didn't occupy positions of power in Spain circa 1492 or Columbus wouldn't have dicovered Cuba or whatever he discovered.
(-:
I have no clue why it works in such a large percentage of cases and I differ from you because I could care less why. All I care about is making shots that I otherwise wouldn't be making.
Maybe it is the issues you cited. Maybe it's a visual perception thing so that it would only work for certain sets of eyes. And maybe some critics are correct that we THINK we are using the system but are making subtle adjustments subconsciously.....BGUT SO WHAT?????????????
As the man said..."It ain't how, brother, it's how many!"
FINALLY, to illustrate a point on visual perception. I recently left home for JOBs to play with my pal Bobby Pickle and instead of bringing my pool glasses, brought my COMPUTER glasses.
Well, when I got down over shots, the balls looked OBLONG...like eggs viewed from the long side. I wanted to leave but Bobby called me a wimp so I stayed and shot (MISERABLY) for an hour and a half but then noticed that the balls were not as oblong as they were at first.
At the end of two hours...THE DAMN BALLS WERE ROUND AGAIN! My brain finally adjusted. It said "The balls are NOT oblong you idiot...they are ROUND and it MADE them round!! (later, I found out that there is a LOT of science on that exact matter.)
I belabor this point because the same STONEHEADS that think raw geometry provides exact solutions in the game of pool (those same people who apparantly have never heard of CIT, or cushion distortion or rolling vs. skidding balls hitting rails) must also be ignorant of vision-oriented variables caused by the vagaries of binocular vision...depth perception...peripheral vision and dominant eye issues.
So, to those people, and with all DUE respect, I say...I SEE WHAT I SEE and you can BTFO !
(-:
FREE AT LAST...FREE AT LAST...THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, I'M FREE AT LAST!
(-:
I just got back from JOB's here in Nashville where I met, for the first time, a member of this forum who WILL NOT post here for fear of the onslaught that you referred to above.
NICE young man who has a 9' Diamond at his house and wanted me to work with him on the same table at JOBs.
We went through an array of shots. I started out standing 6 feet behind him and when he got down on the shots, I told him from 6 feet away, where his tip was pointing relative to the surface of the CB.
Every time, he agreed and every time (except on a couple LONG shots where cueing errors led to a miss) but on the "test bed" shots he made them all.
And what frys my circuits is WHAT IF the system only worked on TWO TYPES of shots that give you trouble. What if it ONLY works on back cuts or on angles with the OB a ball or so off the side rail...where, for me, there is sort of an optical issusion.
And WHAT IF, it "only" improved your pocketing percentage by 50%...NOT 100%? Would ya buy that deal???
You would...but the STONEHEADS (and none of them know who they are) in some cases TRASHED the system BEFORE I HAD EVEN POSTED IT!!!
Thank God they didn't occupy positions of power in Spain circa 1492 or Columbus wouldn't have dicovered Cuba or whatever he discovered.
(-:
I have no clue why it works in such a large percentage of cases and I differ from you because I could care less why. All I care about is making shots that I otherwise wouldn't be making.
Maybe it is the issues you cited. Maybe it's a visual perception thing so that it would only work for certain sets of eyes. And maybe some critics are correct that we THINK we are using the system but are making subtle adjustments subconsciously.....BGUT SO WHAT?????????????
As the man said..."It ain't how, brother, it's how many!"
FINALLY, to illustrate a point on visual perception. I recently left home for JOBs to play with my pal Bobby Pickle and instead of bringing my pool glasses, brought my COMPUTER glasses.
Well, when I got down over shots, the balls looked OBLONG...like eggs viewed from the long side. I wanted to leave but Bobby called me a wimp so I stayed and shot (MISERABLY) for an hour and a half but then noticed that the balls were not as oblong as they were at first.
At the end of two hours...THE DAMN BALLS WERE ROUND AGAIN! My brain finally adjusted. It said "The balls are NOT oblong you idiot...they are ROUND and it MADE them round!! (later, I found out that there is a LOT of science on that exact matter.)
I belabor this point because the same STONEHEADS that think raw geometry provides exact solutions in the game of pool (those same people who apparantly have never heard of CIT, or cushion distortion or rolling vs. skidding balls hitting rails) must also be ignorant of vision-oriented variables caused by the vagaries of binocular vision...depth perception...peripheral vision and dominant eye issues.
So, to those people, and with all DUE respect, I say...I SEE WHAT I SEE and you can BTFO !
(-: