NOTE: Of course learning how to accurately visualize the OB contact point and precisely where my stick is pointed near it are skills learned through lots of concerted practice - while at the same time learning which measurement = which cut angle. Welcome to aiming in pool.
Oh near it? How near? Where do you start the cue pointing process and what determines it? What type of "concerted" practice teaches the stick pointing? Do you just start somewhere like the center of the cueball and the edge of the object ball so that there is a clear objective reference that you can use for every shot? That would make sense to me since the "contact point" should be easy to find by pointing the cue stick at the pocket with the tip splitting the object ball. Then there would be a fixed reference point line from the cue ball to the object ball from which to estimate the distance to the contact point. What then could be done with this estimated distance is unclear but at least it would be something that just about any person could perform reasonably consistently. I don't mean naming a length such as .83" but just learning to recognize the length of the contact point to the edge for each type of shot. I doubt highly that any human could accurately state the distance between these points even with one of them being a static objective reference. But surely there is some usefulness in terms of brute-force trial and error learning. Any static references inform the perception and help to form a decision that is more likely to be closer to accurate than without such references.
I am still lost as to what you mean by cut angle? When I think of angle I think of precise degrees. 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 for example are angles in 15 degree increments. So when a shot is 42 degrees or 47 degrees how does your two reference (contact point - static, cue point - variable) account for these cut angle differences? I think that the larger the cut angle the more distance between the contact point and the cue point there would be, assuming we can figure out what you mean by cue point and where it starts. But in the case of a 90 degree cut the contact point is on the edge of the object ball. However the cue cannot point to the inside edge of the cueball towards the object ball contact point and have for consistent success. But if that line were created then one could move the cue tip to center ball parallel to the cb edge-contact-point line and have consistent success. But one wouldn't need the cue to determine the shot line in that situation.
So when you are using this 2 metric "simple" method of aiming are you thinking in cut angles and how do you determine what that angle is if so? Is there any line length that corresponds to any cut angle? In the previous example a 90 degree cut would be equal to a 1.125" line length if one were using a cue pointing method that started at the center of the cueball through the edge of the object ball. However if this is all some kind of estimation that doesn't use actual cut angles or line lengths then I would agree that it likely takes "lots of concerted practice" as you put it. Probably way more than learning one of the various very objective aiming systems available. I mean I can understand why you would think of some of these methods, with their clearly defined steps, as "complicated" when contrasted with this "simple" method that you say you use.
While you are very helpful to the readers in describing your aiming method I have to say that there is no possible way that any other person could know if this is what you are actually doing. I mean you could be using the Center to Edge method and getting the shot line that way but telling people that you are using the PJ "simple" method. But of course given your particular 20 year negativity towards objective aiming systems I would doubt that this would be occurring but it needs to be mentioned as this has been one of your primary accusations against aiming system users, the insinuation that aiming system users are NOT applying the techniques that they claim to be using to get the results they demonstrate.
The physical things we align to create the CB/OB overlaps needed for our shots are our "aiming metrics" - they can be the simple visual overlap of the two balls, the same visual overlap quantified as fractions of the balls, visualizing the CB's position against the OB at contact, or other ways ranging from very simple to very complicated.
I like simple. To keep my aiming metrics simple I've reduced them to two visual elements that I just consciously compare, letting my subconscious tell me when they're "on" for the cut angle.
The visual elements I use as my aiming metrics are (1) the OB contact point and (2) exactly where my stick is pointing on or near the OB. With these two points to compare I have the two ends of a simple and obvious "measurement" for any cut angle (pic below).
Simply noticing the measurement each time I take a shot builds a memory bank of shot pictures ("perceptions"?) based on precisely where my cue is pointed, with the added benefit of precisely monitoring that physical alignment and stroke.
NOTE: Of course learning how to accurately visualize the OB contact point and precisely where my stick is pointed near it are skills learned through lots of concerted practice - while at the same time learning which measurement = which cut angle. Welcome to aiming in pool.
pj
chgo
View attachment 593685
Welcome to aiming in pool? Vague instructions that boil down to try a lot and pay attention?
Thank you for your contribution but to me this feels like you are trying to justify your particular method of fidgeting while you are down on the cueball until you settle down to shoot the cueball. It sounds like you are TRYING to inject some objectivity into your description while maintaining that this "simple" method requires a ton of practice.
Personally, this sounds much more complicated and vague than ghost ball. Ghost ball is actually simple, imagine a fully formed ball contacting the object ball on the line to the pocket and replace that phantom ball with the real cue ball.
I would be surprised, if you took a beginner and taught them this and Dave Segal taught a beginner 90/90, if your beginner could outshoot Dave's beginner. I am confident that one month after learning these methods that Dave's player would have a far larger arsenal of shots that they could consistently make. Furthermore I doubt that your beginner would ever catch up to Dave's if they didn't learn a better way to aim.
Maybe you should make a DVD to show us exactly how you apply this simple (and seemingly quite inaccurate) 2-metric method (metric is WRONGLY used here as nothing here is actually a measurement using any standard units of measurement).
Of course I think you will say that no dvd is necessary because all it takes it Hitting A Million Balls "concertedly". Can I post the video of you fidget-aiming now so that people can see how it looks in practice and understand what is going on in your mind as you move your bridge hand around seemingly frenetically? Or have you changed your style since 2013 and that odd way of going from standing to final solid shooting position is no longer representative of how you aim?
