It seems to have become rather clearly apparent that a certain few, very vocal, individuals here on AZB have no real correct & accurate understanding of what objective means when that word is put into the context of the phrase ‘an objective aiming system’.
That would be an ‘aiming system’ that is objective in nature & does not rely on subjectivity.
That would be an ‘aiming system’ that functions on the utilization of objective means to determine & then facilitate arriving on the true line of all possible shots & does NOT rely on any subjective analysis, nor any conscious or subconscious ‘decisions’ based on any subjective analysis, nor any subjective input or direction in getting the cue stick to those true shot lines.
A member here on AZB, has determined that it would take 75 separate & distinct Cue Ball – Object Ball collision outcome angles to successfully pocket all of the cut shots required by the game that could come up at any given time. That is due to pocket slop, but since 'a truly objective system' would be a center pocket 'system', I’m going to use 90, 0 to 89 degrees would be 90 distinct angles with a contact point for each one.
I know of NO system or method that has 75 or 90 individual objective markers that indicate an aiming line that would result in each of those required angles in any objectively defined manner.
Hence, for the lack of such, any system or method that utilizes less than 75 or 90 individually specific objective markers would require subjective analysis, subjective interpretation, subjective decisions, & subjective input & direction to arrive on any shot line that one would ultimately use.
So… any system or method that does not have those 75 or 90 individually specific objective markers would by necessity have to be a subjective aiming system, just as all currently known systems or methods currently are.
Even if a system or method did have the 75 or 90 objective markers, how would an individual know, objectively, which one would apply to any given cut shot? It would still take one’s subjective interpretation of the shot at hand to then make a subjective decision as to which of the 75 or 90 objective markers to apply to the shot.
The circumference of the 2 ¼ inch diameter object ball is 7.0686 inches. The one quadrant of it that is contacted by the cue ball to ‘angle’ or cut a ball differently from a center to center hit is 1.76715 inches. Divide that by 90 for the required objective markers for a center pocket system = .019635 inches on the ball, or less than 2 hundredths on an inch. That would be the amount of separation between each of the required 90 objective markers.
Now which ONE would it be for any given cut shot? How would any normal human being… 1st. know which ONE of something that small & near to one another would be the correct ONE… & then maintain focus on it & then align & direct the appropriate point of the cue ball to make contact with that ONE & ONLY POINT. Where would the cue stick need to be aligned to make that happen? It’s not just point the cue through center CB to that point. That’s just the point that a corresponding point of the Cue Ball would need to make contact. Where does one align & point the cue stick to get that less than 2 hundredths of an inch spot on the cue ball to contact the other less than 2 hundredths of an inch POINT on the OB. And that is not even accurate as that is just the separation between the ‘infinitely’ small ‘objective’ points.
I sincerely hope that this can help in the realization of how extremely difficult & for all practical purposes & how practically ‘impossible’ it would be to have a truly ‘objective aiming system’.
It should also make one realize just how amazing our bodies & minds are to be able to play the game with any real level of consistent success. I will trust my subconscious mind (feel) way more than I trust my intellect & conscious mind.
Please Think for Yourself & Please Make Your own Determinations.
Best Wishes to ALL & Your Families & Friends,
Rick
PS Joe Tucker has an aiming method where one envisions I think 9 points on the outside quadrant of the OB & the same on the inside quadrant of the CB & then one ‘matches’ them up as indicated by where the OB sits on the table relative to the pocket.
Is that a macro objective system or method? What about when the balls are not exactly on the designated line? Subjective interpretation? How many center pocket points for other angles are there between those 9 markers. Would that be TEN(10) between each one. Subjective interpretation?
That would be an ‘aiming system’ that is objective in nature & does not rely on subjectivity.
That would be an ‘aiming system’ that functions on the utilization of objective means to determine & then facilitate arriving on the true line of all possible shots & does NOT rely on any subjective analysis, nor any conscious or subconscious ‘decisions’ based on any subjective analysis, nor any subjective input or direction in getting the cue stick to those true shot lines.
A member here on AZB, has determined that it would take 75 separate & distinct Cue Ball – Object Ball collision outcome angles to successfully pocket all of the cut shots required by the game that could come up at any given time. That is due to pocket slop, but since 'a truly objective system' would be a center pocket 'system', I’m going to use 90, 0 to 89 degrees would be 90 distinct angles with a contact point for each one.
I know of NO system or method that has 75 or 90 individual objective markers that indicate an aiming line that would result in each of those required angles in any objectively defined manner.
Hence, for the lack of such, any system or method that utilizes less than 75 or 90 individually specific objective markers would require subjective analysis, subjective interpretation, subjective decisions, & subjective input & direction to arrive on any shot line that one would ultimately use.
So… any system or method that does not have those 75 or 90 individually specific objective markers would by necessity have to be a subjective aiming system, just as all currently known systems or methods currently are.
Even if a system or method did have the 75 or 90 objective markers, how would an individual know, objectively, which one would apply to any given cut shot? It would still take one’s subjective interpretation of the shot at hand to then make a subjective decision as to which of the 75 or 90 objective markers to apply to the shot.
The circumference of the 2 ¼ inch diameter object ball is 7.0686 inches. The one quadrant of it that is contacted by the cue ball to ‘angle’ or cut a ball differently from a center to center hit is 1.76715 inches. Divide that by 90 for the required objective markers for a center pocket system = .019635 inches on the ball, or less than 2 hundredths on an inch. That would be the amount of separation between each of the required 90 objective markers.
Now which ONE would it be for any given cut shot? How would any normal human being… 1st. know which ONE of something that small & near to one another would be the correct ONE… & then maintain focus on it & then align & direct the appropriate point of the cue ball to make contact with that ONE & ONLY POINT. Where would the cue stick need to be aligned to make that happen? It’s not just point the cue through center CB to that point. That’s just the point that a corresponding point of the Cue Ball would need to make contact. Where does one align & point the cue stick to get that less than 2 hundredths of an inch spot on the cue ball to contact the other less than 2 hundredths of an inch POINT on the OB. And that is not even accurate as that is just the separation between the ‘infinitely’ small ‘objective’ points.
I sincerely hope that this can help in the realization of how extremely difficult & for all practical purposes & how practically ‘impossible’ it would be to have a truly ‘objective aiming system’.
It should also make one realize just how amazing our bodies & minds are to be able to play the game with any real level of consistent success. I will trust my subconscious mind (feel) way more than I trust my intellect & conscious mind.
Please Think for Yourself & Please Make Your own Determinations.
Best Wishes to ALL & Your Families & Friends,
Rick
PS Joe Tucker has an aiming method where one envisions I think 9 points on the outside quadrant of the OB & the same on the inside quadrant of the CB & then one ‘matches’ them up as indicated by where the OB sits on the table relative to the pocket.
Is that a macro objective system or method? What about when the balls are not exactly on the designated line? Subjective interpretation? How many center pocket points for other angles are there between those 9 markers. Would that be TEN(10) between each one. Subjective interpretation?
Last edited:
