Stun plays like a thicker hit.
My theory is aiming means nothing...
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
Stun plays like a thicker hit.
Great post!!!Here is my theory...
If you knew EXACTLY where to hit to make a shot, for every shot, you would not play any better than your current level. My contention is that there is SO MUCH to this game, that the theoretical aiming point, line, ball, whatever, is an almost insignificant portion of your overall performance as a player.
How can we prove (or disprove) this theory?
1. Place one of Joe Tuckers ghost ball training aidsunder every single ball in a rack of 9 ball. This will tell you the perfect "ghost ball" location for each ball.
2. See if you can run the rack.
3. Repeat 50 racks, keeping score of how many balls you ran each rack.
4. Repeat 50 more racks, without the aid, and keep score.
5. Compare your results.
Also, forget about all the pointing!! lol
Aiming? Hmmm....
I don't think of pool as aiming. I think of alignment.
I get in what "I" perceive to be the correct alignment and go from there.
So, I agree that aiming means nothing.
However, alignment plays just as much 9f a role as having a str8 stroke etc...etc.
I don't think of pool as aiming. I think of alignment.
I get in what "I" perceive to be the correct alignment and go from there.
So, I agree that aiming means nothing.
However, alignment plays just as much 9f a role as having a str8 stroke etc...etc.
As long as there are "respected" instructors out there saying that throw does not happen or does not matter then there will always be confused players out there.
I also think context matters. If a guy on a video tape says "there is only one spot on the ball to pocket it" I'm pretty sure he is talking to entry level players. This is the downside to watching videos rather than having personal instruction. We quote instructors on video and take them to mean things that were never intended.
I also think context matters. If a guy on a video tape says "there is only one spot on the ball to pocket it" I'm pretty sure he is talking to entry level players. This is the downside to watching videos rather than having personal instruction. We quote instructors on video and take them to mean things that were never intended.
I don't even remember starting this thread 7 years ago, or any of the posts in it. I must have gotten caught up in the aiming drama then. I was prone to letting that happen. I think I've been pretty good at avoiding it since
On that note, I did not read this thread since its been re-openend, save for the re-opening post or two. I will try my best to resist the temptation to read it, lest I fall into the aiming drama again. ha ha ha ha
Oh, I see this was made in the main forum. It must have pre-dated the aiming sub-forum. I do think creating that forum helped save my sanity Now I just avoid the whole aiming sub-forum completely.
On that note, I did not read this thread since its been re-openend, save for the re-opening post or two. I will try my best to resist the temptation to read it, lest I fall into the aiming drama again. ha ha ha haOh, I see this was made in the main forum. It must have pre-dated the aiming sub-forum. I do think creating that forum helped save my sanity
Now I just avoid the whole aiming sub-forum completely.
I think it is better to arrange to say things that are accurate from the very start. It's not hard to throw in a caveat like, "The basic idea is.... but later we'll see that there are some complications when the shot gets longer that require some adjustment." I think accuracy is more important than simplicity.
Yep.
I can say this. If you want to confirm that throw affects your contact point, just try shooting a few racks using sidespin on every shot. Unless you're SVB or the likes of, I can almost guarantee that your potting skills are going to go down at least one ball.
Maniac
Your key word there is AFFECT.
Which instructor or player has stated that throw doesn't affect the contact point...?
The only thing I've seen them say is the contact point remains the same but you must adjust for throw.
I'm wondering if ANY of them have it down cold.
Feeney says...."use draw and a slightly elevated cue to offset throw".
Kinnister says....."do shot #1 a hundred times a day, use the workout as written, and you will become a pool player.
Another guy says...."you had to be born a Filipino and sleep under pool tables and be in poverty."
SVB says...."aim with the edge of the ferrule most of the time..which will take care of throw if you hit it low".
Another man writes a book called "Poolology" with a scientific approach to fraction aiming and never mentions throw.
Mosconi says in his video....."there is only one contact point"...and then shows how throw can cause a miss.
Jimmy Moore said..."you must allow for throw when you pivot into the shot line.
Mosconi in his books (which he didn't write anyway) says....."all shots can be figured mathematically so let's leave nothing to chance." And then proceeds with drawings of full ball, 1/4 ball, 3/4 ball, 1/2 ball, and thin hits. Never mentioning throw.
Another guy writes about a "90-90" system and never mentions the affect of throw.
Another guy writes about a "see see" system and never mentions the affect of throw.
Another one writes about "using a body pivot to the shot line".
Another one touts...."I shoot by feel"
Another says....."I just see the shot"
Another says....."you must hit a million balls".
Another says....."just look at the cueball last"
Another says....."just look at the object ball last".
Another says....."I watched Greenleaf for a year. He used inside on every shot".
Another says....."A touch of inside on every shot creates the angle along with consistency".
Duckie says...."there is no such thing as a 1/2 ball hit.
Grady said...."I don't worry about all that. I just raise the bet. They usually choke.
Doughnut Belly instructors preach "no elbow drop".
Snooker instructors say..."get low and let the cue brush your chest".
Another says..."I know someone who can see 1/64 inch of a cut angle"
Lassiter said...."I visualize a tube of balls on the table leading down to the object ball"
Billy Staton (Beanie) said...."just practice 7 hours a day for a couple of years and it will all work out.
And finally Don Willis said......"Get up here, all of you bums and I will rob you. I'm the best alive"...(which is probably the best process of all over the long run if you can do it)
No wonder someone who studies this game almost goes batcrazy trying to figure out which road to go down.
*Thinks it's time to have some booze, re-visit college days with some loco weed, listen to some Dave Brubeck, Muddy Waters, Nina Simone, and just repeat the immortal words of the great Val Kilmer in the movie Tombstone........"there's no such thing as a normal life, Wyatt....there's just life"*
:thumbup:
Last edited:
"The contact point remains the same, but you must adjust for throw"? What do you suppose adjusting for throw entails? CHANGING the contact point! If you have a half ball hit far way from a small pocket and you warp it in with draw, making it, then shoot the same shot, the same way with slow stun, you are going to miss even if you hit the same contact point. Why would anyone not understand this?
I bought the Joe Tucker Aiming by the numbers system, and I have very little bad to say about it. But there is a big reason why most of the demonstrations are made warping the ball in with draw...The system doesn't work when you roll the ball in slowly or even stun in the balls, at longer distance from the pocket. You will be close for most shots, but not exactly accurate. After a while you subconsciously adjust, anyway. Stan Shuffet also varies his spin with the hit. Some shots he too warps in with draw, others he stuns..He's no fool, he knows all of this stuff, but he doesn't want to put it in the main videos in much detail for good reasons.
BTW the SEE system DOES account for throw, and is a model example in that respect! It's very comprehensive as well, when it comes to other factors, such as sidespin (deflection) etc.
The reason why so few people mention the throw with any level of precision is simple: It's very complicated, and will vary with conditions. SEE did an admirable attempt, but IMO became over complicated. It would be perfect for the person who wants to micro manage every aspect of his game, and I'm not saying that mockingly, some players are like that.
I think Don Feeney had a very high level of understanding of the game. I learned so much from his video. It helped fix a problem I had with overcutting side-of-the-rack breakshots. His solution was to point out that the cueball jumps on hard topspin shots, overcutting them to an extent, so aim to the thick part of the pocket. Knowing that will reduce missing on these shots instantly! I think if you want a high level understanding of the technical aspect of the game, that can actually be USED for something, not just mentally masturbating, his video is the one to study. Though I will admit, i don't think I'vve ever used the "canted slate" knowledge on there, consciously.
Last edited:
That's a pretty good okay posting.
How about a drink.?? You buying.???? ( I can't help it, I'm always looking for an edge)
:thumbup2:
That's an excellent question. I've wondered about that myself.
If someone has been told the contrary by someone they trust -- maybe a parent or someone who has really helped with particular shots or someone who is a champion -- then it is very likely that they will believe what that person says. That's just the way people work.
For a long time I believed what Willie had told me. I'm ashamed it took so long to figure out that he (or his ghost writer) didn't actually understand what he was writing about.
The most prolific British writer on cue sports (Riso Levi) said that Walter Lindrum was an idiot for believing in transferred side. I suspect that a lot of Levi's fans believed Levi and though Walter was an idiot -- or at least a little simple. Everyone knows how stupid if not downright criminal all those Aussies are! I guess they could ignore the fact that Walter used transferred side to beat the British like a team of rented mules and is arguably the best cueman who has ever lived.
Well, if you ask your average, or even above average snooker player TODAY if they think transferring side is possible or a factor, most will say no! There are many reasons why this is, many of which are writers who spread misinformation. Also important is the fact that snooker (and English Billiards and even Blackball) is played on square nose cushions that are less "reactive" to sidespin. The ball doesn't sink into the cushion as much, less of the ball is therefore in contact with the cushion and remain in contact for a shorter amount of time (this would be my explanation). The cushions play faster, but also less responsive to sidespin. Spin transfer banks are (I'm not going to say impossible) at best extremely difficult, at least I can't do it. Besides that, most play on fairly slow nap cloth that eats up the spin and even if it didn't the balls are solid colored, making spin harder to detect. The situations that can require spin transfer from ball to ball are dealt with intuitively and with little understanding of the theory.
Last edited:
Then they should be easy marks for the following shot, which I've made many times on 6x12 tables.
I think most snooker players never see proof of transferred side because they are rarely in a situation where it is needed and when they are they would never play the transferred side shot. In reality any time they play a double, transferred side is probably in the mix.
![CropperCapture[169].png](https://forums.azbilliards.com/data/attachments/368/368195-e1f8690c2fc9f47f9fc5195af588984e.jpg?hash=4fhpDC_J9H "CropperCapture[169].png")
Note that the banked ball actually has to be shot slightly away from the cushion to clear the blockers on the way back.
This is correct. A spot on a round object ball is impossible to keep track of, especially when the cue ball is also round. No way to get one spot to the other.
I think of it as a rough line from cue ball to object ball, but Luther's view is just as good in my book.
All the best,
WW
Bob - let's say your cue ball bounces a little on the way to the 4 ball. If the cue ball collides with the 4 slightly higher than the equator wouldn't that potentially add a little masse to the 4, which also would cause the same thing to happen? I'm not saying there would be enough masse to make that happen necessarily but wouldn't you have to consider that as an alternative explanation for a successful shot?
Low 500 not sure what ZERO-X video you are watching and not sure how you are taking whatever he said out of context, but Tor Lowry goes into great detail regarding the effects of throw whether cut induced or spin induced. You are obviously misinterpreting what he said. Mosconi too. These guys know (or knew in Mosconi's case) very well how important a factor throw is.
Last edited:
As usual, old no-shooting Low500 is all wrong in what he saw or heard.
He's pretty dense, you know. (and ugly too)
:shrug:
