Yep, including your continued inability to understand it.
Maybe, instead of just ignoring and denying all the explanations, you should try to actually read and understand one.
Credit for staying polite, though.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
More aiming fodder for the cannons.
- Thread starter Mensabum
- Start date
Maybe, instead of just ignoring and denying all the explanations, you should try to actually read and understand one.
Credit for staying polite, though.
pj
chgo
Oikawa
Well-known member
At this point it feels like an elaborate troll, this is like the 3rd or 4th thread about the same thing. All in all, at least the system, with its obvious geometrical inaccuracy, acts as a nice case study for how pool is largely a psychological game, and how what you think you are doing might not be accurate to what you are actually doing.
CJ is a quack, who sadly tries to hustle unsuspecting beginners with his idiotic videos.
lol. I don't make any money teaching pool. The aiming system you use is faulty as has been easily shown. The fact that you can't come to terms with that means you aren't a reasonable person.
Oh, brother. Here's an easy experiment: put the OB 1 diamond off the end rail and in the middle of the table. Put the CB 6 feet away from the OB, so that you have about an 80-90 degree cut. Use your system to get the contact point on the CB and the OB. If you actually succeed in hitting the CB contact point into the OB contact point, you will pound the OB into the rail well short of the pocket. The necessary contact point on the CB to sink the OB will be near 9 o'clock--not the 10 or 11 o'clock that your system gives. Better yet, don't actually shoot the shot, instead use a sharpie to put a dot on the CB where the system determines the contact point is, then do the same for the OB. Next, use your hand to slide the CB along the shot line until the CB contact point touches the OB contact point. You should be able to see that the CB angle into the OB will drive it into the rail not into the pocket.
You can also do the experiment in reverse: use the CB as the ghost ball and place it so that it is touching the OB and the line of centers is straight into the pocket. Use a sharpie to mark the contact point on the CB where it is touching the OB. Next, slide the CB away from the OB at about an 80 degree cut angle until the CB is 6 feet from the OB. Now draw a line from the pocket to the CB and mark the contact point on the CB with a sharpie. Is it the same contact point as the initial contact point you marked?
You can claim to use any aiming system to sink an OB, but whether you succeed in accurately employing the aiming system you claim to be using is another matter. For instance, I can use your aiming system and adjust the CB contact point 1/2 inch from the determined contact point and sink 20 balls in a row, however any observer will be able to see that my adjusted contact point doesn't actually hit the OB contact point, so I'm not actually doing what I claim to be doing.
The fact that you think your CB contact point is accurate means that you can't shoot where you are aiming, otherwise you would miss most of your cut shots which are more than 60 degrees because you would always be hitting the OB too fat.
Last edited:
Thin black line is line of centers. Energy transfers from ball to ball along this line only.
The colored lines are CB contact vectors drawn through the point of contact. Notice they pivot on the same spot no other if ands buts or other such things. You could make this an aiming system by itself. Ghost Point instead of Ghost Ball. Notice too, the equal (cross) sections formed by each line.
The MB triangulation cannot produce this effect.
The colored lines are CB contact vectors drawn through the point of contact. Notice they pivot on the same spot no other if ands buts or other such things. You could make this an aiming system by itself. Ghost Point instead of Ghost Ball. Notice too, the equal (cross) sections formed by each line.
The MB triangulation cannot produce this effect.
It may take more attention than ghost ball but there is so much more alignment detail. Ghost ball is still just your best guess at the shot.
Basically you locate the contact points. There are several ways to do this but for now, just visually connect the dots. What it shows you is the actual angle your stick must form - IOW, the stick line. Once you determine the stick alignment you can stare at the cue ball as you shoot. You don't have to but the point is you are now on the shot with nothing more to guess at. You should though observe all aspects as you learn so you develop strong shot and shooting imagery.
Paul_#_
Well-known member
Presume Mensabum’s statements are correct and there is little unconscious adjustment to correct any inaccuracy of his aiming method.
How can it be that
Part of the answer may be in Fastone371's observation that it's impossible for Mensabum’s cue-ball contact point to contact the object-ball contact point.
In parallel-line method, the two contact points line up so that the cue ball hits OB at contact point. Not so with the Mensabum method, however.
If one draws lines between the contact points of the two aiming methods, the two lines intersect. Although the Mensabum method has a contact point more distant from the cue-ball edge, the line for it crosses the parallel-line method and lessens the inaccuracy between the aiming methods.
That and the imprecision in aiming using either method makes Mensabum's method as successful as the parallel-line aiming method for many shots.
How can it be that
Mensabum learned this method from a pro who had learned it from another pro;
@Ringo_6, likely independent of Mensabum, touts it and produced a video on it;
It appears to work for many players even though Mensabum's method is inaccurate?
Part of the answer may be in Fastone371's observation that it's impossible for Mensabum’s cue-ball contact point to contact the object-ball contact point.
In using the method, one looks from the cue ball toward the object ball, and lines up the two contact points —regardless whether the contact points can actually contact each other.
In parallel-line method, the two contact points line up so that the cue ball hits OB at contact point. Not so with the Mensabum method, however.
If one draws lines between the contact points of the two aiming methods, the two lines intersect. Although the Mensabum method has a contact point more distant from the cue-ball edge, the line for it crosses the parallel-line method and lessens the inaccuracy between the aiming methods.
That and the imprecision in aiming using either method makes Mensabum's method as successful as the parallel-line aiming method for many shots.