Geometrically correct aiming systems?

[Kerry Impson]

I think you guys are just differing in the definition of the word "system." Drivermaker is asserting that all methods of aiming involve the use of a system, while DoomCue is denying that assertion, saying that intuitively "knowing" how to make the object ball is not using a system. But it makes sense (to me, at least) that if one approaches a shot with any kind of aim at all (and isn't just blindly knocking the cue ball in the direction of the object ball without regard for where it goes) then one is using some kind of system, however ingrained/subconscious/unwitting, etc.

Just my two cents!

 

[drivermaker]

I think you guys are just differing in the definition of the word "system." Drivermaker is asserting that all methods of aiming involve the use of a system, while DoomCue is denying that assertion, saying that intuitively "knowing" how to make the object ball is not using a system. But it makes sense (to me, at least) that if one approaches a shot with any kind of aim at all (and isn't just blindly knocking the cue ball in the direction of the object ball without regard for where it goes) then one is using some kind of system, however ingrained/subconscious/unwitting, etc.

Just my two cents!

That be it exactly. (I wish I could be more articulate like that)

 

[DoomCue]

I think you guys are just differing in the definition of the word "system." Drivermaker is asserting that all methods of aiming involve the use of a system, while DoomCue is denying that assertion, saying that intuitively "knowing" how to make the object ball is not using a system. But it makes sense (to me, at least) that if one approaches a shot with any kind of aim at all (and isn't just blindly knocking the cue ball in the direction of the object ball without regard for where it goes) then one is using some kind of system, however ingrained/subconscious/unwitting, etc.

Just my two cents!

Actually, I'm saying that everyone's approach, as they get better, is unique, so there is no "system." Drivermaker is saying that all aiming involves something like ghost ball, Hal Houle, etc. I say that as players get better, all those things go out the window and players come up with their own "system." Obviously, what works for an individual is his own individual system, or methodology, or thought process, or whatever. I'm not arguing semantics.

-djb

 

[drivermaker]

Actually, I'm saying that everyone's approach, as they get better, is unique, so there is no "system."

I say that as players get better, all those things go out the window and players come up with their own "system."

Obviously, what works for an individual is his own individual system, or methodology, or thought process, or whatever.

-djb

I'm saying the same thing that you are (I think), but we're still a little off.

In the first two sentences above you contradicted yourself. You said "there is no system", and in the next sentence you say "they come up with their own system". So, there IS a system which you reiterated in the next sentence, "what works for an individual is his own individual SYSTEM".

I take that one step backwards in the lifetime of learning in that individual and say, "your own individual system, is a direct result of an ESTABLISHED and IDENTIFIABLE existing system that was internalized and you don't think about it or realize which one it even was that currently and predominantly influences you".

It's like someone that has a PhD. It all started with the alphabet, words, sentences, etc., etc, etc. We all learned the same stuff in the same way. It's a building block to what we are and do, it's all identifiable.