My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mikjary said:
My pockets are 4 inch and I really like this size. I'm used to it after playing on it for years. Though it limits my packages or straight pool runs, it keeps me coming back.

Geno played on it and said it was, "a brutal table to practice on." :grin: I don't even think about it anymore.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Even though the difference is rather slight the tables with the custom cut pockets play much tougher than the Diamond with the 4" pockets.

The 'odd' thing about the custom cut table is that the side pockets are normal sized & cut as most of the gambling done on them is one pocket.

I like the 4" Diamond & don't really find it excessively tight at all. I think it's a very good table for better players.

For one pocket, it is sometimes more difficult to move balls out of the opponents pocket & not scratch with the larger pocket.

Anyway...

The thing is that there is no consistency in the game. Imagine going to play basketball & every gym or playground has different sized hoops but the ball used is the same.

IMHO, the BCA let the game down even though I know it was a trade organization & IMHO had a conflict of interests. The old pro players should have done something like the Pro Golfers did when they formed the PGA of America.

Now there are just too many different sized pocket tables. My Brunswick Sport King has 4 1/2 inch pockets & I think that is a good size for recreational play like with the wife, neighbors, 'kids' & anyone looking to have some fun without it being 5 gallon buckets.

But back in the day, who would have thought that there would one day be a professional bar box title?

Best 2 Ya.
 
Some things have been said & inferred in this thread regarding me that are simply incorrect & a few other incorrect things have been said & inferred.

What I & others have an issue with is the description of 'an objective aiming system' being applied to ANY method, as such simply does not exist.

An explanation of even how one could exist has NEVER been given much less how & why any particular aiming method is one.

Yet, ongoing attempts to defend the use of that description continue by a certain few.

It does not take any proficiency in a system or method to be able to discuss it at any particular level in order to be able to determine the nature of an aiming method.

Too many false premises are being put out which lead to false conclusions, even when logically based on a false premise, it's still a false conclusion.

Any logical unbiased individual that as never seen a pool table or held a cue stick could be able to make a determination regarding the nature of an aiming method after hearing only a few factual explanations.

I think most members of a pool forum can make that determination rather easily.

I think that is what most outsiders that read these threads very simply do. I also think that when they see no logical explanation being offered & certain questions either not answered or insufficiently answered with basically no answer at all, by a particular side, they can make their own determinations.

So... when an unbiased individual hears or sees both sides they simply make their own determination.

But when one side wants to silence the other side & complains about that side presenting their side, & 'attacking' the messenger instead of addressing the message, I think that too is influential & is rather telling.

I think the general readership here is plenty intelligent enough to hear & see both sides & make their own determinations...
as my sig line has recommended for nearly the entire time that I have been a member here.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
JB Cases said:
The steps were.

Acquire the CTE line.

Go down to shooting position with the bridge hand landing so that the cue tip is pointed to center ball.

Pivot to center and shoot.

That's what I did on all the shots.

Here is the shot at 1:31 - same steps.

https://youtu.be/Eb9e6NuNteE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&t=87

And here is the shot at 2:20

https://youtu.be/Eb9e6NuNteE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&t=135

I place the ball and stand up to acquire the CTE line and then go down into the shot. There is no backing off.

For each of these shots I did the exact same thing. The only thing that changed was my body position around the table. For each shot it changed because each shot was in fact a different shot. But the visual perception and alignment to the cue ball was exactly the same, each shot done at center cue ball.
Click to expand...
OF the cue ball or the object ball ?
Looked to me you pointed to the left of the cb then pivoted to the center.
They did not appear the same to me .
 
JoeyInCali said:
OF the cue ball or the object ball ?
Looked to me you pointed to the left of the cb then pivoted to the center.
They did not appear the same to me .
Click to expand...

Yes, I misspoke. Go down and let the bridge hand land so that the cue tip is pointed to the left edge of the cb ball and then pivot to center.

That's what I did on each shot.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Hi Mike,

Even though the difference is rather slight the tables with the custom cut pockets play much tougher than the Diamond with the 4" pockets.

The 'odd' thing about the custom cut table is that the side pockets are normal sized & cut as most of the gambling done on them is one pocket.

I like the 4" Diamond & don't really find it excessively tight at all. I think it's a very good table for better players.

For one pocket, it is sometimes more difficult to move balls out of the opponents pocket & not scratch with the larger pocket.

Anyway...

The thing is that there is no consistency in the game. Imagine going to play basketball & every gym or playground has different sized hoops but the ball used is the same.

IMHO, the BCA let the game down even though I know it was a trade organization & IMHO had a conflict of interests. The old pro players should have done something like the Pro Golfers did when they formed the PGA of America.

Now there are just too many different sized pocket tables. My Brunswick Sport King has 4 1/2 inch pockets & I think that is a good size for recreational play like with the wife, neighbors, 'kids' & anyone looking to have some fun without it being 5 gallon buckets.

But back in the day, who would have thought that there would one day be a professional bar box title?

Best 2 Ya.
Click to expand...

I think it would be a good thing to invent a table where the pocket sizes could be adjusted as needed.

I have had the idea this past week to create a magnetic whiteboard that is setup to perfect scale complete with discs and even half spheres and possibly even with spheres with flat spot bottoms. The idea would be that this training board would come with plenty of arrows, ghost balls, and adjustable pockets so that one could explain the difference in precision required with differences in pocket openings and pocket cut angles.

There is a pool room in Dallas called Wizards where the pockets are huge but the pocket cut is funny and the shelf is do deep that a full ball can sit on the slate fully inside the points. The result is that these tables will reject balls that touch the rail on the way in and hang them up.
 
JB Cases said:
I think it would be a good thing to invent a table where the pocket sizes could be adjusted as needed.

I have had the idea this past week to create a magnetic whiteboard that is setup to perfect scale complete with discs and even half spheres and possibly even with spheres with flat spot bottoms. The idea would be that this training board would come with plenty of arrows, ghost balls, and adjustable pockets so that one could explain the difference in precision required with differences in pocket openings and pocket cut angles.

There is a pool room in Dallas called Wizards where the pockets are huge but the pocket cut is funny and the shelf is do deep that a full ball can sit on the slate fully inside the points. The result is that these tables will reject balls that touch the rail on the way in and hang them up.
Click to expand...
I think it would be a better idea to have a universally accepted pocket size. You go into a strange pool hall to play a guy, I would take comfort knowing the pockets would be cut and are the same size as the tables at my pool hall.
 
Pidge said:
I think it would be a better idea to have a universally accepted pocket size. You go into a strange pool hall to play a guy, I would take comfort knowing the pockets would be cut and are the same size as the tables at my pool hall.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with this as well from my standpoint as one of the better players around, I would prefer the consistency.

On the other hand from a business standpoint I want more players in the game and that means bigger pockets are more attractive. On a side note I find it fascinating to have been able to to see how billiards games and equipment has evolved differently around the world.
 
Pidge said:
I think it would be a better idea to have a universally accepted pocket size. You go into a strange pool hall to play a guy, I would take comfort knowing the pockets would be cut and are the same size as the tables at my pool hall.
Click to expand...

When the game was popular & they had a bit of power because money was being made & for the making, the older pros should have fought for such, among other things.

They did not take the road of the Old Golf Pros. You do not decide to hold a tournament & PGA Pros just show up to play in it.

They had & have requirements (demands) or no PGA sanction & none of the PGA pros in your tournament.

Pool Pros are now at the mercy & basically slaves to tournament promoters.

Like CJ Wiley was saying, now a Pro Playing in a tournament does not even get a towel & water.

If a gambling match is being set up, it's now as much about where & on what table it will be played as anything else.

It never should have gotten to this state.

Now that it is, I doubt it will ever get to where it should have & could have gotten.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
ENGLISH! said:
When the game was popular & they had a bit of power because money was being made & for the making, the older pros should have fought for such, among other things.

They did not take the road of the Old Golf Pros. You do not decide to hold a tournament & PGA Pros just show up to play in it.

They had & have requirements (demands) or no PGA sanction & none of the PGA pros in your tournament.

Pool Pros are now at the mercy & basically slaves to tournament promoters.

Like CJ Wiley was saying, now a Pro Playing in a tournament does not even get a towel & water.

If a gambling match is being set up, it's now as much about where & on what table it will be played as anything else.

It never should have gotten to this state.

Now that it is, I doubt it will ever get to where it should have & could have gotten.

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...

Well we fully agree on this. Pool is a fractured sport and I also doubt it will ever be unified.
 
I think there is an interesting discussion going on in the Joe Tucker thread but I seriously doubt that there will be a truthful conclusion & resolution.

Best Wishes to All.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Unfortunately for me & perhaps others I can't participate.

It's like CJ Wiley has said here.

When the winner of a big tournament is interviewed they never say, 'I was seeing well today'.

Instead, they very often say, 'I was feeling great today' or 'I just felt good' or 'I just had a good feel'.

It's not seeing with no feel & it's not feeling without sight.

There's a hybrid of the two senses.

Our sight gathers the information. Our 'feel' makes decisions based on that information.

It might be a great thing if it were just see this & succeed. That was rather intriguing but it's just not how matters are.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
I found a post by Dan White to be interesting.

He made 3 shots in row using a certain perception of the shots.

He then did the same thing but only looked at the cue ball when shooting & missed all 3 shots.

That is not just a coincidence of any kind.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
Joe Tucker's Method.

Mikjary Mike has me interested in looking into Joe Tucker's numbered method.

At first impression it seems too complicated as I'm not use to visualizing one quadrant of the object ball 'cut up' into that many pieces.

I just 'see' the 'point' on the OB that lines up to the pocket from the perspective of the cue ball & then make an equal amount of the CB overlap that line on the inside of the cut. It's equal & opposite overlap.

One does not literally have to see the point on the cue ball that will make contact with the contact point on the OB.

I think it is easier & less complicated & that is what we usually gravitate to. The most simple method that seems to work the best, at least for me as an individual.

The shadow method is good too but there is a point at which an adjustment is needed & that point it becomes a grey area of judgement as to just when it is & for those shots near that point doubt pops up, at least for me it does.

I'm anxiously awaiting for the release & perhaps an early review of Mr. Eekees S.A.M.B.A. method.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Wilson says, I am free to post again where ever I choose.

We had a good discussion a couple of days ago & the above was the outcome.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
That is good English.

Your posts are usually spot on imo and when you feel like posting something I want to be able to read it.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Mr. Wilson says, I am free to post again where ever I choose.

We had a good discussion a couple of days ago & the above was the outcome.

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...

Well that's good because all this aiming BS has left Wedhead Wednesday severely neglected! ;)
 
ENGLISH! said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Unfortunately for me & perhaps others I can't participate.

It's like CJ Wiley has said here.

When the winner of a big tournament is interviewed they never say, 'I was seeing well today'.

Instead, they very often say, 'I was feeling great today' or 'I just felt good' or 'I just had a good feel'.

It's not seeing with no feel & it's not feeling without sight.

There's a hybrid of the two senses.

Our sight gathers the information. Our 'feel' makes decisions based on that information.

It might be a great thing if it were just see this & succeed. That was rather intriguing but it's just not how matters are.

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...

Actually sometimes players have said they were seeing the balls really well. But in the end performance isn't confined to one aspect of the parts required to perform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top