aiming
- Thread starter berlowmj
- Start date
unknownpro said:
I agree with you that the ghost ball system is likely the most nearly infallible approach to aiming (as a baseline from which cueing variables must be applied. Further, it is so intuitive, that it is likely the best system for new students to start out on.
HOWEVER, where I think you stray is in your pronouncement that it is the ONLY system that makes sense.
I disagree with you on that because, by definition, the system requires the shooter to create an imaginary image situated in an exact spot and to RETAIN that image until the stroke has been executed.
Ghost ball advocates must understand that the ability to REALLY create such imaginary objects and KEEP that object fixed in one's mind through all the physical and mental distractions that occur between the time the image is originally created and when the stroke is executed, varies WIDELY from person to person.
Some people have outstanding visualization skills and others have practically none at all.
I have never heard a pro golfer speak about their pre-shot routines without saying that they visualize their body movements during the swing process...how those movements FEEL and the path the ball will describe after it is hit.
But here's the deal! There are...what...100 pro golfers making a living on the tour...out of the tens of thousands who set their sights on a pro career but fall by the wayside and in MANY cases, the missing ingredient may well be a lack of the EXTREME visualization skills that all top pros say they have...unless they are lying.
So, I feel that your notion that the ghost ball method excludes ALL others is quite an overstatement...and one that is bourne out by the fact that LOTS of world champion pros either use other methods or are lying when they say they do...which is certainly possible in EVERY case and is absolutely FACT in some cases.
But let me conclude by repeating that given the necessary visualization skills, the ghost ball system...if utilized with an understanding of the need to adjust its position BY DEFAULT to account for CIT (which is a BIG IF) ...is virtually irrefutably the best system.
Regards,
Jim
Well... it's really no better than any other "geometrically accurate" method, and there are a few: "paralleling", "overlapping" and "point to point" come to mind. Each of these gives the correct (unadjusted) CB/OB alignment, although each may be best suited for different players.
All of these methods are better than the "pretend" aiming systems that try to elevate to a science our wish that aiming was easier.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, you seem given to broad generlizations presented as fact. Possibly you should consider the more frequent use of IMHO or other similar qualifiers.
Most of the other systems and certainly the ones you mention, involve the attempt to use more imaginary points/objects than the ghost balls system that requires only one.
And besides, the "geometrically accurate" systems/methods to which you are so devoted are well know NOT to be accurate and must be MODIFIED to account for CIT on a significant percentage, if not the vast majority of shots.
pj
chgo[/QUOTE]
Well, you seem given to broad generlizations presented as fact. Possibly you should consider the more frequent use of IMHO or other similar qualifiers.
Most of the other systems and certainly the ones you mention, involve the attempt to use more imaginary points/objects than the ghost balls system that requires only one.
And besides, the "geometrically accurate" systems/methods to which you are so devoted are well know NOT to be accurate and must be MODIFIED to account for CIT on a significant percentage, if not the vast majority of shots.
Read the great Joe Davis as quoted by Byrne in "Advanced Techniques" as follows and in reference to LOC geometry.
"It is a very plausible theory but it happens to be untrue....In my experiments I have found that sighting on this principle is always too thick...and you can take it that I have made my tests as nearly foolproof as is humanly possible."
Byrne then did his own experiments with confirmed Davis' and Byrne writes that Bob Jewett was consulted on this matter.
Therefore, I assume that Bob would concur in the following.
With respect to cut shots struck center ball and within a range of 15-80 degrees (+/-) the operation of collision induced throw will force the OB off of its geometrically derived path to a degree commensurate with the distance of the OB's travel toward the intended target and the physical condition of the balls. Therefore, the theoretical path derived by geometry, will not be traced by the OB given the parameters cited above.
Regards,
Jim
Many broad generalizations are fact, Jim.
Let's stick to the ones I mentioned. I have even less faith in your broad generalizations than you do in mine.
No, they don't. Give specific examples if you think so.
Duh - you seem to be given to stating the obvious. That's why I said "Each of these gives the correct (unadjusted) CB/OB alignment."
Which systems or methods do you know of that don't need to be adjusted for realities such as throw? How many of them are invalidated by this necessity? Is yours?
As I've said to you several times already (even once with a diagram to help you understand - silly me), throw doesn't change the validity of geometry - for instance, if you shoot two half ball hits in two different directions, the throw on each will be the same and the geometry on each will be the same. You seem unable to grasp this basic concept, but fortunately for the rest of us reality doesn't depend on your ability to grasp it.
pj
chgo
Wouldn't you have to know exactly how they do aim in order to know this?
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Patrick, all your hair-splitting and truncated versions of my comments and misrepresentations of your comments demean you.
"throw doesn't change the validity of geometry"
THAT is the essential bone of contention between us and fortunately I am correct and you are incorrect and I cite Jack koehler, Roberty Byrne and Joe Taylor as authorities.
You post your little diagrams showing cut shot where the CP is derived from the LOC from the center of the pocket and you show the shot going dead center AND YOU ARE WRONG EVERY TIME YOU DO IT because throw DOES change the validity of geometry IN THE FASHION YOU INSIST ON USING IT.
GEOMETRY IS A BASELINE FROM WHICH ADJUSTMENT MUST BE MADE FOR MOST CUT SHOTS BECAUSE THE OB WILL NOT TRAVEL ALONG THE LOC.
YOU ARE SERIOUSLY MISLEADING THE READERS OF YOUR POSTS AND THE VIEWERS OF YOUR DIAGRAMS WHICH SUGGEST OTHERWISE.
I have cited the books and page numbers that establish the above FACT and I suggest that you cease your petty, face saving bickering and READ UP to avoid continued embarrassment.
But like Quixote...undaunted, you argue on.
Regards,
Jim
Patrick Johnson said:
No, Patrick...all you would have to be is not stupid and therefore conclude that they are not stupid.
It is also helpful to know that many of them won't disclose their aiming techniques AT ALL (which conforms to my comment). As evidence refuting that statement, please post your sources establishing which of the current Top 20 pros have revealed their techniques...not suggestions regarding how STUDENTS might go about aiming but how THEY aim.
It is really almost terminally naive for you to even THINK that pros reveal their innermost secrets to the public (and therefore other pros) let alone to POST such nonsense on this forum.
Oh....sigh...and many are not Patrick, so just exactly how did that remark advance your cause???
Regards,
Jim
Last edited:
Page 18
.....
.....
No, the "little diagram" I posted does not show cut shots going dead center along the LOC. Did you actually look at it? It's whole purpose was to show the effect of throw.
If you actually listened and thought about these things rather than spending all your energy desperately seeking something, anything, I might be wrong about you might be wrong yourself a lot less often.
No need to shout, Jim - I've already agreed with this obvious truth more than once. As I've also said more than once, it doesn't change anything. There's nothing "ungeometrical" about a shot being affected by throw. It isn't a law of geometry that cut shots must travel along the CP LOC. You simply don't understand geometry or its role or usefulness in pool.
pj
chgo
av84fun said:
You ARE wrong about the vast majority of shots. There are actually very few shots that baseline geometry in conjunction with a properly executed stroke and properly executed BHE doesn't work. I was one person who was able to duplicate your system if you're doing what I did, which I'm not entirely sure of, but accurate geometry is perfectly accurate in the vast majority of cases.
JADEN
Hi,
Thanks for your comments which are always informative...and courteous. I appreciate that.
But likely due to flaws in explaining myself, your comment above actually confirms my position...which is....On shots other than those that are relatively close to the intended pocket, a cue ball rolling forward WITHOUT ROTATING ABOUT ITS VERTICAL AXIS (spinning) when contacting an OB on its line of centers toward the pocket (its geometric path) will NOT cause the OB to travel that path due to the operation of collision-induced throw and therefore, those who argue that the geometric LOC path will be traveled are simply wrong (assuming the balls collide at MOST (but not all) angles to the LOC path.
The operative concept central to my thesis is that the CB is NOT spinning.
Of course, if it IS spinning THEN the path of the OB CAN be made to travel the geometrically derived path but the shooter must apply some sort of force causing the CB to spin for that path to be made good.
I have used the phrase "raw geometry" to qualify my statements and "raw GEOMETRY" cannot be convoluted to suggest the imposition of a force in PHYSICS.
So, in your example, you refer to the use of BHE which, of course imposes spin and therefore removes the shot from the realm of raw geometry.
Therefore, I think that we actually agree.
I have given BHE the old college try and it doesn't work well...for me. Possibly due to the "old dog, new tricks" issue but I would like to think that the reasons are the fact that I use a low deflection shaft (predator) and that my bridge distance doesn't accommodate the use of BHE...both of which are the factors that Bob Jewett cites in a 2004 article as reasons why BHE might not be right for everyone.
http://www.onthebreaknews.com/Jewett2.htm
So, for the avoidance of doubt, my position is that...To a degree that increases with the distance from OB to pocket, cut angle and less-than-perfect ball condition, an OB will not trace the path suggested by raw geometry UNLESS the shooter imparts spin to the exact extent necessary to counteract collision induced throw.
Therefore, given the not precisely predictable magnitude of CIT and the equally imprecise nature of imparting spin, the EXACT amount of required spin would be imposed largely by chance and therefore, directing the CB exactly along the LOC path would also occur largely by chance..although, nevertheless, the OB may drop due to the margin of error permitted by the pocket.
But the suggestions..."Raw geometrric aiming works EXACTLY" and "Shots aimed with raw geometry will go if the OB is close enough to the pocket that it will drop in spite of the erroneous raw geometric aim" are WORLDS apart.
WHEW!!!
Bottom line...I think we agree about the geometric path not being traveled assuming a LOC contact point hit without the imposition of spin.
Right??
FINALLY, what makes this whole line of discussion non-trivial as that even the most learned authors (and those who post diagrams on forums) routinely depict shots based on raw geometry.
EVEN Byrne does so in "Standard Book" at page 24 (1987 edition,Chapter 2 Center Ball Shots) when he begins to describe how to line up shots. His graph and text suggests the LOC CP method of lining up a 20 something degree shot.
I HASTEN TO ADD THAT HE HASTENS TO EXPLAIN (beyond page 24) all that needs to be known about CIT and why aim must be adjusted to compensate...BUT someone could post THAT PARTICULAR diagram and swear that it stands for the proposition that Byrne knows nothing about CIT and thinks that the geometric path will be made good.
There are posts in the threads that ADAMANTLY testify that the "raw geo" path WILL AND HAS TO BE made good...but of course, on a center ball hit...it WILL NOT AND CANNOT BE made good...even with brand new balls.
Are we on the same page? If not, I will be genuinely interested in your counterpoint.
Regards,
Jim
Hi,
Thanks for your comments which are always informative...and courteous. I appreciate that.
But likely due to flaws in explaining myself, your comment above actually confirms my position...which is....On shots other than those that are relatively close to the intended pocket, a cue ball rolling forward WITHOUT ROTATING ABOUT ITS VERTICAL AXIS (spinning) when contacting an OB on its line of centers toward the pocket (its geometric path) will NOT cause the OB to travel that path due to the operation of collision-induced throw and therefore, those who argue that the geometric LOC path will be traveled are simply wrong (assuming the balls collide at MOST (but not all) angles to the LOC path.
The operative concept central to my thesis is that the CB is NOT spinning.
Of course, if it IS spinning THEN the path of the OB CAN be made to travel the geometrically derived path but the shooter must apply some sort of force causing the CB to spin for that path to be made good.
I have used the phrase "raw geometry" to qualify my statements and "raw GEOMETRY" cannot be convoluted to suggest the imposition of a force in PHYSICS.
So, in your example, you refer to the use of BHE which, of course imposes spin and therefore removes the shot from the realm of raw geometry.
Therefore, I think that we actually agree.
I have given BHE the old college try and it doesn't work well...for me. Possibly due to the "old dog, new tricks" issue but I would like to think that the reasons are the fact that I use a low deflection shaft (predator) and that my bridge distance doesn't accommodate the use of BHE...both of which are the factors that Bob Jewett cites in a 2004 article as reasons why BHE might not be right for everyone.
http://www.onthebreaknews.com/Jewett2.htm
So, for the avoidance of doubt, my position is that...To a degree that increases with the distance from OB to pocket, cut angle and less-than-perfect ball condition, an OB will not trace the path suggested by raw geometry UNLESS the shooter imparts spin to the exact extent necessary to counteract collision induced throw.
Therefore, given the not precisely predictable magnitude of CIT and the equally imprecise nature of imparting spin, the EXACT amount of required spin would be imposed largely by chance and therefore, directing the CB exactly along the LOC path would also occur largely by chance..although, nevertheless, the OB may drop due to the margin of error permitted by the pocket.
But the suggestions..."Raw geometrric aiming works EXACTLY" and "Shots aimed with raw geometry will go if the OB is close enough to the pocket that it will drop in spite of the erroneous raw geometric aim" are WORLDS apart.
WHEW!!!
Bottom line...I think we agree about the geometric path not being traveled assuming a LOC contact point hit without the imposition of spin.
Right??
FINALLY, what makes this whole line of discussion non-trivial as that even the most learned authors (and those who post diagrams on forums) routinely depict shots based on raw geometry.
EVEN Byrne does so in "Standard Book" at page 24 (1987 edition,Chapter 2 Center Ball Shots) when he begins to describe how to line up shots. His graph and text suggests the LOC CP method of lining up a 20 something degree shot.
I HASTEN TO ADD THAT HE HASTENS TO EXPLAIN (beyond page 24) all that needs to be known about CIT and why aim must be adjusted to compensate...BUT someone could post THAT PARTICULAR diagram and swear that it stands for the proposition that Byrne knows nothing about CIT and thinks that the geometric path will be made good.
There are posts in the threads that ADAMANTLY testify that the "raw geo" path WILL AND HAS TO BE made good...but of course, on a center ball hit...it WILL NOT AND CANNOT BE made good...even with brand new balls.
Are we on the same page? If not, I will be genuinely interested in your counterpoint.
Regards,
Jim
Where? By whom?
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Oh...by...ummmm....I'll think of it...gimme a minute...
Oh yeah......YOU! As in..
"As I've said to you several times already (even once with a diagram to help you understand - silly me), throw doesn't change the validity of geometry - for instance, if you shoot two half ball hits in two different directions, the throw on each will be the same and the geometry on each will be the same. You seem unable to grasp this basic concept, but fortunately for the rest of us reality doesn't depend on your ability to grasp it."
(Emphasis added.)
Granted, you bob and weave from time to time...usually after the fact of someone pointing out the partial and/or non-truths you spout...such as "throw doesn't change the validity of geometry."
Then you seal your fate by eliminating the possibility that by "validity" you meant "usefulness" which would adopt MY thesis...that raw geometry is not a precisely ACCURATE means of determining where to strike an OB so as to force it down the LOC (in the instances I propose) but IS USEFUL as a BASELINE.
You sealed your fate by stating "the throw on each will be the same and the geometry on each will be the same."
But as you know perfectly well...because you are obviously not an ignorant man...that "throw" is a term describing a force in PHYSICS and that PHYSICS is not GEOMETRY.
My position has been AT LEAST consistent and I recently recited it again in a post to JADEN but briefly stated, raw geometry WILL NOT precisely predict the path of an OBB in relation to the line of centers between CB and OB on most cut angles UNLESS AN EXTRANEOUS PHYSICAL FORCE HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH GEOMETRY IS IMPOSED UPON THE CB AND THUS UPON THE OB.
End of story Patrick and where the story began is my statement to you that your diagrams showing that the LOC path WOULD be made good on the cut shots you depicted WAS WRONG.
THEN (realizing you were wrong) you start bobbing and weaving and introducing qualifiers THAT I HAD PRESENTED TO YOU in a quite transparant attempt to save face.
Your posts speak for themselves Patrick and as others have pointed out, you don't seem to be able to carry on a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without being condescending, uppity and snippy...which only breeds responses in kind.
So...now...for the good of the community...I'm DONE with you sir. Post whatever you like to me or about me because I will not see it due to the blessed relief of the ignore feature.
Finally, though, as I have expressed to you elsewhere, I hold no personal animosity toward you. You're grumpy and have an overly developed sense of your own knowledge and powers of reason and cognition but that's OK.
Good night...and good luck.
Jim
Why would anyone who has spent serious time and effort and thought just give away their hard earned knowledge that in some respects is as good as gold?
Furthermore, there is no secret to pool. You have a table a cue stick and some balls. You can watch other people play the game.
Try it. Practice. Figure it out. Accomplish something.
And let someone else do so as well. Let them take the epic journey. And let them become a better person for it.
JM
Furthermore, there is no secret to pool. You have a table a cue stick and some balls. You can watch other people play the game.
Try it. Practice. Figure it out. Accomplish something.
And let someone else do so as well. Let them take the epic journey. And let them become a better person for it.
JM
jmorton said:
Many pros won't for reasons associated with their net worth...just as NFL coaches don't, so far as I know, post new plays they are developing.
But others, who don't make a living as tour players or roadies wish to contribute to the sport we love so much.
I suggest that there are secrets regarding how the table, cue stick and balls are put to use. Granted, there are far fewer secrets than there used to be back in the day when many of the greatest players famously took their knowledge to the grave.
But over the past couple of decades, there has been a welcome explosion of books, DVDs and "pool schools" so fewer "secrets" exist.
Great advice...and then read/view everything published by Byrne, Koehler and Jewett...take a lesson with one of the widely respected instructors...some of which are members of this forum or the enormously helpful "pool school" conducted by Allison and Gerda. (I don't mean to exclude any of the great authors and I own MANY other instructional materials...but we have to start somewhere and the above is where I would recommend starting).
The students will STILL have to "figure it out" for themselves but with rare exceptions reserved for the prodigies among us, the process of figuring it out will be significantly accelerated by seeking and testing the advice provided by others who know more than we do and I am grateful for the boost provided by knowledgable people, including many members of this forum.
Regards,
Jim
What do we know now that was kept secret by the pros in earlier years?
pj
chgo