aiming

Patrick Johnson said:
I guess great minds think alike because I do the same thing. It's simple, direct and effective, but it doesn't eliminate estimating, which is a big part of every shot, and I think that's probably where the "shot library" comes in. I bet the estimating is done by comparing what we're looking at with our accumulated memories of similar successful shots - our "shot library".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

OK, I should have read this post before I replied to the previous one.

The good news - it isn't semantics.

Estimating - I prefer the term 'calculating' and I did a lot of it
when I was learning. I never estimate anymore.

Some may call this shooting by feel.

Dale
 
Me:

I bet you have a "shot library" that you use on every shot, especially if you don't use a system. It's how the inescapable "feel" part of aiming every shot is done (by comparing what you're seeing with your memory of making similar shots before).

pdcue:

I don't think so.

... I never think about
what I want to accomplish when I am down on the shot. That is always
done before I bend into my stance.
Click to expand...

Thinking isn't a part of the estimating I'm talking about. It's done subconsciously.


Once I am down on the ball, I see<visualize> exactly where I need to hit the OB. All I think about is hitting that spot.
Click to expand...

This is estimating. It's also estimating when you decide where to point the cue ball to hit that spot, even if you imagine a ghost ball to help your estimating. It's also estimating when you decide where to point your stick to make your cue ball go there.

Aiming is full of estimations. They can't be avoided.

pj
chgo
 
pdcue:

I never estimate anymore.

Some may call this shooting by feel.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want, aiming is full of estimations no matter how "scientific" you try to be about it. In fact, "shooting by feel" ensures that you're using the maximum amount of (subconscious) estimating. Without any "tangible" alignments to work with, it's *all* estimating.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Call it what you want, aiming is full of estimations no matter how "scientific" you try to be about it. In fact, "shooting by feel" ensures that you're using the maximum amount of (subconscious) estimating. Without any "tangible" alignments to work with, it's *all* estimating.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Wtf. I just hit the spot, as others have said. Aiming, estimating, scientifically reasoning, guessing, knowing, feeling, or whatever.

I can't help but be anoyed by pages and pages of arguing over word choice for something two people are more than likely agreeing on anyway... Sometimes a nice succinct response goes a long way; other times, I should carry a box of tissues to hand out...
 
seymore15074 said:
Wtf. I just hit the spot, as others have said. Aiming, estimating, scientifically reasoning, guessing, knowing, feeling, or whatever.

I can't help but be anoyed by pages and pages of arguing over word choice for something two people are more than likely agreeing on anyway... Sometimes a nice succinct response goes a long way; other times, I should carry a box of tissues to hand out...
Click to expand...
I guess we should stop forcing you to read these annoying conversations that others are having.

pj
chgo
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The aim point is identical for all of your shots above. Center pocket for each. This kept me up all night as well. Your game tends to improve when you sight one aim over and over for the next few decades, instead of infinite angles described above. Silver bullet? Well, if you combine SAM (not sure what this is, but I assume the end result is a straight stroke) with the single aim system - I'd call that a silver bullet.

I almost wish I hadn't posted anything. I just encourage people to do their own research, find the people in the know and decide for yourself. Maybe there are subconscious adjustments. Maybe not. What does it matter when the ball fires into the pocket, right?
Click to expand...


What I know is that whatever I truely believe I have no problem in sharing.
If you honestly believe in what you are doing then shout it out. Stand behind it and spread the knowledge. You ask us to research it and I have found a disciple of it yet he won't disclose any information.
That is not really very confirming to the searcher.

With that said I ask you to share whatever it is that you have discovered. I am interested and perhaps might not agree but could take parts of it on the rest of my journey.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Thinking isn't a part of the estimating I'm talking about. It's done subconsciously.




This is estimating. It's also estimating when you decide where to point the cue ball to hit that spot, even if you imagine a ghost ball to help your estimating. It's also estimating when you decide where to point your stick to make your cue ball go there.

Aiming is full of estimations. They can't be avoided.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

The aforementioned estimations only exist in your
admitedly fertile immagination.

Two quick points

I doubt you know my process better than I do.

You apear to not understand the meaning of the word estimate.

One slow point:
your final statement may be true for you - talk to a few good shotmakers,
I would be shocked if they agree.

Dale
 
The aforementioned estimations only exist in your
admitedly fertile immagination.
Click to expand...

That's entirely possible.

I doubt you know my process better than I do.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't presume to claim otherwise.

You apear to not understand the meaning of the word estimate.
Click to expand...

Could be I don't understand your meaning. I'm saying there's always an element of skill or artistry in aiming; it can't be reduced to a mechanical process - that's why some are better at it than others, and why it's interesting.

The better you get at it, the less like estimating it seems, but it's still just really really good estimating. Unless you're saying you haven't missed lately.

pj
chgo
 
Here's my Hal Houle experience: About 10-12 years ago Hal was holding court in Northern CA & I became interested in what he had to say. After listening for about 10 minutes I asked him a very simple question: how do you hit this shot to make it in the corner? He answered "that's a half ball hit". I move both balls over about 3-4 inches and asked again. His reply was "that's a half ball hit" without any explaination of adjustment. I walked away.

http://CueTable.com/P/?@2HAMN2PANi2cAMN3ccht3cdGs3cdfs@1HDfM1PDXg1cDfM3ccxt@

If you look at the wei table, the first shows the balls similar to how I originally set them up (don't remember exactly), the second table shows how I moved the balls keeping them basically together but further away from the pocket I intended to make the 8 ball. If the 1st answer was correct, a half ball hit, then how in the world would the second be exactly the same hit? Wouldn't the ball go into the rail about 3" left of the pocket? I know there had to be an adjustment to the original half ball hit, but Hal could not, or would not, provide one. If he had, I would still be listening to him...maybe.

JMO, Dave
 
Last edited:
12squared said:
Here's my Hal Houle experience: About 10-12 years ago Hal was holding court in Northern CA & I became interested in what he had to say. After listening for about 10 minutes I asked him a very simple question: how do you hit this shot to make it in the corner? He answered "that's a half ball hit". I move both balls over about 3-4 inches and asked again. His reply was "that's a half ball hit" without any explaination of adjustment. I walked away.

http://CueTable.com/P/?@2HAMN2PANi2cAMN3ccht3cdGs3cdfs@1HDfM1PDXg1cDfM3ccxt@

If you look at the wei table, the first shows the balls similar to how I originally set them up (don't remember exactly), the second table shows how I moved the balls keeping them basically together but further away from the pocket I intended to make the 8 ball. If the 1st answer was correct, a half ball hit, then how in the world would the second be exactly the same hit? Wouldn't the ball go into the rail about 3" left of the pocket? I know there had to be an adjustment to the original half ball hit, but Hal could not, or would not, provide one. I he had, I would still be listening to him...maybe.

JMO, Dave
Click to expand...

While the AIM POINT on your object ball remains the same the CONTACT POINT on your cueball changes ever so slightly. Mr. Houle can explain it alot better.........SPF=rtandyg
 
While the AIM POINT on your object ball remains the same the CONTACT POINT on your cueball changes ever so slightly. Mr. Houle can explain it alot better...
Click to expand...

You're a BCA Master Instructor and you can't explain it?

pj
chgo
 
randyg said:
While the AIM POINT on your object ball remains the same the CONTACT POINT on your cueball changes ever so slightly. Mr. Houle can explain it alot better.........SPF=rtandyg
Click to expand...

You mean such that it's no longer a "half-ball" hit, right?
 
He just explained a ton of things, at least for me!

Patrick Johnson said:
You're a BCA Master Instructor and you can't explain it?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


Randy just dropped in the key piece I needed to put the rest of a puzzle together. A lot of things that I couldn't quite make sense of make perfect sense now including his good buddy Sam.

Hu
 
Hal's system works. Some of us need it some of us do not. The ball is a half ball hit on both shots. Take it to the table no english than come back. As long as your table is half as long as it is wide my freind. no english please.
 
breakin8 said:
Now the one's in the know should stop posting on this subject.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone "in the know" stop posting on this subject?

JoeyA
 
Are you in the know. There is alot of money made with aiming system. You really never need to Miss. Cory D. proved that valley forge. Did not miss a ball in two days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top