From "aim by feel" to "aim at a point"

heater451 said:
And that is also exactly my point--"you are aiming to make the contact points collide" is different than "focusing specifically on the thru the center of the cue ball aim line". When using a 'fractional system' aim line, the focus IS on the CCB aim line, so when shifting to joining the contact points, one is now "aiming" with a line that is parallel to the CCB.

Imagine this...If I put you in a pickup truck, and placed a basketball on a pole (wide enough for the ball to sit upon), and instructed you to knock the ball off with the passenger sideview mirror, you would not be driving straight at the pole--neither to hit it center-grill, nor in front of the driver. In this case, you would be "aiming" with the mirror, and not the centerline of the truck/driver. Now, you could also say that you are "aiming" away from the pole and are conscious of the offset of the mirror from the (main, non-mirror) truck body, but then I would say that introduces "feel". [Note, this assumes that you don't know the specific measurement of, say, your seated position to the location of the mirror, and could then estimate the amount to offset the truck, and drive so that the truck path is the correct measurement to strike the ball--Ironically, this could be done back on the pool table, where the equipment measurements are known!]
Click to expand...
FYI, "aiming to make the contact points collide" is done "by feel", just like all aiming methods. Starting with a known visible "reference" alignment like "fractions" doesn't change that. Even if the shot is an exact fractional alignment (needing no adjustments) you only know that because you've learned to recognize it "by feel".

pj
chgo
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Patrick Johnson said:
FYI, "aiming to make the contact points collide" is done "by feel", just like all aiming methods. Starting with a known visible "reference" alignment like "fractions" doesn't change that. Even if the shot is an exact fractional alignment (needing no adjustments) you only know that because you've learned to recognize it "by feel".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I disagree, because I believe that aiming for the fractions provides a specific target point, which should yield specific results, although there are caveats. Whether one can align and stroke well enough to make the precise hit(s) is an issue, as well as speed and 'table conditions'.
 
heater451 said:
I believe that aiming for the fractions provides a specific target point, which should yield specific results
Click to expand...
Yes, but recognizing the specific result (cut angle) each fraction produces is learned through practice and repetition - it’s not visually obvious; you have to learn to recognize it. That’s what we call “by feel”.

pj
chgo
 
I both agree and disagree.

If someone knows enough to aim at the fractions, and visually reviewing the results to find the consistencies/patterns and adjust to them, the yes that would feed into the 'feel' technique.

BUT, if the shooter is already aware of the expected results (see chart in thread), then s/he can already assume those to be the baselines, and use the fractions *for shots on those lines* (I would, however, give a nod back to the "feel" aspect, if you are talking about knowing how to ADJUST to those lines.)

At some point, this discussion will probably devolve into semantics, and require a more specific defining of feel. ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top