Mosconi on aiming .

hmmm

SJDinPHX said:
Well, ChicagoRJ, and all the other ASS guys...Isn't this basically what Lou and I, and many, many others, have been saying all along ?....Fortunately, this bit of wisdom, came from one of the most respected members, of this, or any other pool forum.

"I come not to bury Ceasar, but to praise him"...OR in the same vein, "fighting is for kids, and dogs" !

It is well known, that if you have a "system" for beating the odds in Las Vegas, they will pay your air fare, send a limo to pick you up at the airport, and comp your room, food and drinks, and anything else you desire. (if you have enough disposable $$$$$$)..:cool:

Simply put, there are "NO SHORTCUT'S" for playing pool at its highest level. Refine your basics, and if you have the necessary talent... you'll be playing pool like Efren, or golf like Jack and Arnie...Shortcuts are for dreamer's..(and John Barton)..:rolleyes: :idea:

PS..Not to say, all "aiming systems" are bogus...they may very well elevate a newbie (or an APA 2, to an APA3 or 4...Those ranks,
are for people who have nowhere to go but UP. This is NOT meant to demean or belittle them, just being realistic. They can have just as much fun at the game (maybe more) than a top player... Or, to put it even more simply for the ASS guys,
... you cannot make "a silk purse, out of a sow's ear...Just as you "cannot make a racing thoroughbred, out of a plow horse"...

I think Mark Twain or Will Rogers said those pearls of wisdom...But what did they know about pool ?..:p
Click to expand...

Well, no systems to take on VEGAS?. Well, one of them was created by somebody you know on 1P.org who made MILLIONS.....and he used ....wait for it........ a system!!

And one that was so good, he is persona non grata in every casino in Vegas. He can go inside, and he can actually eat there, but he CANNOT gamble. Yikes, I hate when you're wrong....;)

And if somebody wanted a lesson tomorrow and they are provided a way to pot balls better, nobody here believes that will make them world beaters, because potting balls is only the first step, there is still position, touch, and knowledge of what shot to take, but also what is the best way to take it, follow or draw, etc, and that is what seperates the greats from the league players. But only 1 in a thousand folks take a pool lesson on aimining that want to be a world champion cause they could NOT afford the pay cut. Heck, if they could win their legaue MVP they would be happy campers

And you are pretty naive if you believe there is ONLY one way to learn something in life. And if folks cannot get good by just "seeing" the shot as Lou likes to believe, but want to learn something that makes them pot balls better, not sure why that infuriates you so?

And just because some "pro" agrees with you does NOT make you right. Again, you guys that are 1P experts (I'm including you) disagree on a daily basis over there on 1P.org on shot selection, how to play the game (offensive versus defensive), when to push balls up stream, etc., etc., so even great minds DO NOT always think alike......
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
I think they didn't miss much because they did not fill their heads with bogus systems. Crane prided himself on precise pocketing, so whatever he was doing it got the ball to the center of the pocket.
Click to expand...

What do "bogus systems" have to do with knowing about or allowing for CIT? Which systems are bogus systems?

How do you know Crane didn't use a system? You really don't know what those guys were using on a matter-of-fact basis.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think they didn't miss much because they did not fill their heads with bogus systems. Crane prided himself on precise pocketing, so whatever he was doing it got the ball to the center of the pocket.
Click to expand...
Be careful Bob. You might end up on a "Naysayers" blackball list somewhere.

Maybe Crane didn't claim to know about throw (and maybe he didn't fully understand it), but I bet he instinctively knew how to use it and compensate for it when necessary. There is no other explanation for how he could split the pocket so consistently on every type of shot.

Countless hours of practice and successful experience, along with a little natural talent "thrown" in, can eliminate the need to "understand" anything.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
Ratta said:
BHE is always *by feel* and practicing- you just have to know your shaft/material. And this happens just thru practicing.
For BHE there cannot be a 100% description how to use it etc. - someone can show you how it works FOR HIM and how he can train on it until it works.
Click to expand...
For certain types of shots, "feel" isn't required. For example, for fast and/or short distance shots, BHE can be used very effectively without feel if you bridge at the shaft's natural pivot length. Also, for slow/long follow shots, FHE can be very effective. Now, I agree that for all of the shots in between, you need to have a feel for squerve and be able to vary the proportion of BHE and FHE appropriately, but it doesn't need to be total guesswork with "feel" only. Understanding all of the squirt, swerve, and throw effects can bring some logic (and confidence) into the "feel" equation. For more info, see the videos and articles here:

Regards,
Dave
 
cookie man said:
Do you think all aiming systems are bogus?
Click to expand...
My goodness, no. It's just that no system is accurate enough on its own to allow a player to run the typical rack of balls. Note the phrase "on its own."

Systems of all kinds provide a framework within which to organize your technique. Some are better than others. Some aiming systems are demonstrably false and are guaranteed to drive most balls into the cushion if used exactly according to the system as explained. Each of them can work for a player through practice simply because the player is putting his experience into a framework where it can all work together. Also systems usually ask the player to do basic things required on any shot such as look at the balls and angles -- things that are all too often overlooked due to pressure or fatigue.
 
dr_dave said:
...Maybe Crane didn't claim to know about throw (and maybe he didn't fully understand it), but I bet he instinctively knew how to use it and compensate for it when necessary. There is no other explanation for how to could split the pocket so consistently on every type of shot.

Countless hours of practice and successful experience, along with a little natural talent "thrown" in, can eliminate the need to "understand" anything.
Click to expand...

I agree in full.
 
To San Jose Dick (SJDinPhx):

Since you seem to be the "senior elite" player in this discussion, I'd like to ask you a question: Did you ever meet Hal Houle prior to 1980?

Roger
 
PoolSharkAllen said:
Bob,
Which aiming systems do you consider to be bogus? Do you have an opinion of the CTE or the ProOne aiming systems?
Click to expand...
If a system is well described, it is possible to figure out for any positions of the balls (and for a center ball hit) exactly which line the object ball will be driven along. An example of a well-defined but clearly bogus system is this:

Find the spot on the object ball that is farthest from the pocket. Find the spot on the cue ball that is closest to the pocket. Line your cue up on a line parallel to the line joining those two spots and through the center of the cue ball.​
It is possible to calculate -- if you still remember high school geometry/trig -- the error in cut angle for this system for any position of the two balls. If you do that calculation for a few cases, you will see how pitiful this system is.

For some other systems, I do not understand them well enough to do the same analysis. If you, PSAllen, do understand them well enough to do the analysis, you can form your own opinion, and not depend on the opinions of so-called "experts." Experts are often wrong. But I would also say that if you do not understand a system well enough to do this analysis and find out if and where the system breaks down, you may want to move on to a system that you can understand.
 
Last edited:
hmmm

Bob Jewett said:
If a system is well described, it is possible to figure out for any positions of the balls (and for a center ball hit) exactly which line the object ball will be driven along. An example of a well-defined but clearly bogus system is this:

Find the spot on the object ball that is farthest from the pocket. Find the spot on the cue ball that is closest to the pocket. Line your cue up on a line parallel to the line joining those two spots and through the center of the cue ball.​
It is possible to calculate -- if you still remember high school geometry/trig -- the error in cut angle for this system for any position of the two balls. If you do that calculation for a few cases, you will see how pitiful this system is.

For some other systems, I do not understand them well enough to do the same analysis. If you, PSAllen, do understand them well enough to do the analysis, you can form your own opinion, and not depend on the opinions of so-called "experts." Experts are often wrong. But I would also say that if you do not understand a system well enough to do this analysis and find out if and where the system breaks down, you may want to move on to a system that you can understand.
Click to expand...

Bob, I believe you have hit the nail on the head. And this is pretty much what JoeyA, JB, spidey and a few others were saying. There are systems, and some of then do in fact work, but some work well for others and some don't. And some are pretty basic and easy (ghost ball) and some are more difficult (CTE). And no system is "perfect" as many variables come into play and each person will learn how to deal with them as needed, and based on their experience. But at least they have the starting point......

But whether or not it is more difficult does not necessarily make it a wrong "system". Just because I will never understand quantum physics does not make the sciene inaccurate, just incomprehensible to me, but not to the few folks that do get it.
 
Last edited:
Fast Lenny said:
I use an aiming method and it has helped me improve my game, I was taught this by one of the best players in my state. I do not have any natural ability I do not think for the game, some do but most do not. I believe Dick is one of those guys who is a natural when it comes to pool. Shane says he uses a method called stick aiming, I believe that is the shaft method which is similar/same to what I learned this past year. Shane is not selling an aiming product or endorsing anybody's system so what reason would he have to say that?

I just never had the natural ability to pocket balls by feel with consistency and needed a guide to get me going, whether its fools gold or not, it works for this fool. I know I will never be a champion player, if I become a shortstop I would be okay with that as I only started pool at 25, I just turned 32. The big thing for me is enjoying the game and the better you play the more fun it is, the more pleasure comes from the game when your making great shots, playing solid and winning.
Click to expand...

OK, I have to admit, you are greatly improved...(where else could you have gone)...I haven't drawn 'stick men', since I was in grade school....Now, for Chrisake,...give up the game, before you saw your thumb off. :D :D :D
 
Last edited:
SJDinPHX said:
give up the game, before you saw your thumb off. :D :D :D
Click to expand...

That's funny :)

Lenny has the PERFECT style. His thumb makes him look 10 speeds below his real speed. In the meantime, you're locked into a 1p game - with him running 8-and-out leaving you thinking, "I'm getting thumbed to death."

I'm just picking, of course. I completely respect Lenny's game and his 1-hole knowledge. I guess some Frost has rubbed off on him ;)
 
Bob,

What I'm curious about is do the BCA Instructors as a whole; have an official stance on some of the different aiming systems? If not, why not? I would think the recognized BCA Instructors should be able to come to a conclusion on the benefits or detriments of a specific aiming system.

Just curious if there was any talk about this.



Bob Jewett said:
If a system is well described, it is possible to figure out for any positions of the balls (and for a center ball hit) exactly which line the object ball will be driven along. An example of a well-defined but clearly bogus system is this:

Find the spot on the object ball that is farthest from the pocket. Find the spot on the cue ball that is closest to the pocket. Line your cue up on a line parallel to the line joining those two spots and through the center of the cue ball.​
It is possible to calculate -- if you still remember high school geometry/trig -- the error in cut angle for this system for any position of the two balls. If you do that calculation for a few cases, you will see how pitiful this system is.

For some other systems, I do not understand them well enough to do the same analysis. If you, PSAllen, do understand them well enough to do the analysis, you can form your own opinion, and not depend on the opinions of so-called "experts." Experts are often wrong. But I would also say that if you do not understand a system well enough to do this analysis and find out if and where the system breaks down, you may want to move on to a system that you can understand.
Click to expand...
 
ChicagoRJ said:
Bob, I believe you have hit the nail on the head. And this is pretty much what JoeyA, JB, spidey and a few others were saying. There are systems, and some of then do in fact work, but some work well for others and some don't. And some are pretty basic and easy (ghost ball) and some are more difficult (CTE). And no system is "perfect" as many variables come into play and each person will learn how to deal with them as needed, and based on their experience. But at least they have the starting point......
Click to expand...
Funny how I interpreted Bob's Jewett's response differently than you did. :rolleyes:

Bob did hit the nail on the head that one should try to do their own research and not depend on the opinions of so-called "experts" who are often wrong. So people like JB who have openly admitted to being biased and to not being an expert on aiming systems, are probably the least qualified people to be advising other people on aiming systems.

On the other hand, people like Dr. Dave are extremely knowledgeable about various aiming systems and should be considered experts on the subject. These are the people who's opinions I respect and value. So if Dr. Dave has researched a particular aiming system and has doubts about it, then I will tend to give that a lot of weight.
 
Last edited:
BasementDweller said:
Bob,

What I'm curious about is do the BCA Instructors as a whole; have an official stance on some of the different aiming systems? If not, why not? I would think the recognized BCA Instructors should be able to come to a conclusion on the benefits or detriments of a specific aiming system.

Just curious if there was any talk about this.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpbNlnS9GFk
Maybe that one from their video.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If a system is well described, it is possible to figure out for any positions of the balls (and for a center ball hit) exactly which line the object ball will be driven along. An example of a well-defined but clearly bogus system is this:

Find the spot on the object ball that is farthest from the pocket. Find the spot on the cue ball that is closest to the pocket. Line your cue up on a line parallel to the line joining those two spots and through the center of the cue ball.​
It is possible to calculate -- if you still remember high school geometry/trig -- the error in cut angle for this system for any position of the two balls. If you do that calculation for a few cases, you will see how pitiful this system is.

For some other systems, I do not understand them well enough to do the same analysis. If you, PSAllen, do understand them well enough to do the analysis, you can form your own opinion, and not depend on the opinions of so-called "experts." Experts are often wrong. But I would also say that if you do not understand a system well enough to do this analysis and find out if and where the system breaks down, you may want to move on to a system that you can understand.
Click to expand...

" i hug you ! " :D

If all ppl would JUST THINK about this, they would be much further-and next to this the threads and postings were much more friendly.

Rep to you Bob,

lg from overseas,

ingo
 
ThePoliteSniper said:
I thought, contactpoint to contactpoint doesn't work because of CIT.
I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify:

contactpoint to contactpoint works perfectly. But you have to be able to determine
where the OB contactpoint is based on how you are hitting the CB and/or any and all other effects.

This precise prediction capability is called "knowing how to aim"

Dale
 
pdcue said:
ThePoliteSniper said:
I thought, contactpoint to contactpoint doesn't work because of CIT.
I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify:

contactpoint to contactpoint works perfectly. But you have to be able to determine
where the OB contactpoint is based on how you are hitting the CB and/or any and all other effects.

This precise prediction capability is called "knowing how to aim"
Click to expand...
Well stated. Even the ghost-ball system requires that you first estimate how much the ball will throw (due to cut angle or spin) before you determine the desired contact point and line of aim.

For those interested in throw effects, the following video demonstrates most of the factors fairly well:

And much more info can be found on my throw resource page.

Regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top