Thank you. The key phrase was when he commented "instead of the whole side."
In fact, he mentions nothing of aim systems. He just aims. I took that at its simplest to mean that whatever way he looked at the object ball before (looking at the face or whole side of the object ball) he's now testing out concentrating on the bottom half or bottom semi-circle edge and seems to be seeing the object ball into the hole better. Kudos to the OP
Freddie <~~~ wants to get to the bottom of the hole better
I realize that you are something of a legend in the pool world and on this forum and I don't mean to antagonize you or anyone else. I'm just trying to figure out what the OP meant.
I am showing RESPECT to the OP whose obvious intent was to SHARE a change in his aiming technique that had MAJOR benefits to his game. I'm sure he WANTS us to UNDERSTAND what he is sharing.
That's my only purpose in posting these comments.
However, with respect, you say he wasn't discussing an aiming system..."he just aimed." Sorry...but that isn't AT ALL an accurate description of the original post which was IN FACT at least a partial description of an AIMING SYSTEM which relied on AIMING AT the bottom of the ball...as opposed to any other portion of the ball.
Then you went on to COMPLETELY CHANGE what the OP actually stated. He said he aimed AT THE BOTTOM of the ball...which you rephrased to mean that he was "concentrating on the bottom half or bottom semi-circle edge."
Sorry, but that concept was not present...or even IMPLIED by the original post which... to save others time in reviewing it stated....
"I've been playing pool "off & on" for the better part of 30 yrs, went down to the local pool hall today with my trusty old Palmer...I decided to try something I read on AZ a while ago, aiming at the bottom of an object ball, instead of the whole side of the cut....WOW!!! How did I not know this already? I couldn't miss a ball! why is this so much more accurate?" (emphasis added to that VERY SPECIFIC COMMENT!)
I was merely asking for confirmation that he was AIMING AT the VISIBLE BOTTOM...rather than aiming at his ESTIMATE of where the actual bottom is.
And secondly, I was trying to be SURE that he suggests AIMING AT the bottom which AFAIK will infrequently produce a correct cut angle.
And for another poster who similarly suggests that "bottom" is some sort of relative term...sorry again...but it isn't.
"Bottom" is a finite term which means...."The lowest point or part." And it does NOT mean the lowest point or part you happen to be able to SEE. And "lowest" means LOWEST...not some approximation of lowest.
THAT is why I asked the question because aiming AT the actual bottom (or your estimate thereof) and the VISIBLE bottom will produce two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT shot angles.
Of course, ANY noun can be modified with other words such as "bottom half" but that is not what the original post stated.
I am GLAD that you were able to determine exactly what the OP was trying to convey. But you must be somewhat telepathic in doing so because your above explanation doesn't exist in the OP's post.
I'll have to review the thread to be sure my next comment is true and I apologize in advance if it is not...but I'm not aware that my perfectly valid question has been answered.
Is the advice to
AIM AT THE VISIBLE BOTTOM OF THE BALL....or not?
(-:
EagleMan