"All that science stuff"? LOL.
pj
chgo
Sighting (not aiming) thread
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
"All that science stuff"? LOL.
pj
chgo
Usually, folks get a pass on typos, grammar, &tc. on message boards. But since you insist...the correct grammar above would be,
"For having earned a Ph.D., you sure don't spell very well."
See? Everybody can be zinged on it sooner or later. Zat's why I concern myself with the content of a post, not its style, form, typographical accuracy, or grammar (unless those are tending to obscure the author's meaning). Besides, my editor does all that stuff for me when he gets my manuscripts. That's what editors are for.
Anyway, my beef really is not with you personally. It is with the technical hyper analysis of pool, which I think does more to create disinterest and frustration among beginners than anything else. Most folks who enjoy pool and play well never think about most of the stuff that appears on "aiming" type threads. But, if all you've got is a hammer, I suppose everything tends to look like a nail.
TxSkin
Hey, "Okum" Lou. A typo is quite a different thing from a misspelling due to unfamilairty with a word. I thought we settled that a long time ago. :wink:
TxSkin
and yet you still offer no content. i'll never understand why guys like you waste your time reading a thread and then posting in it when you dont see any value?
brian
Sounds a little like ghost-ball aiming to me. This seems to work for a lot (maybe most) people.
Dave
Last edited:
I was wondering if you would catch that. Maybe you are a PhD ("Piled Higher and Deeper") after all. :grin-square:
This is true for some people. But others like to understand and learn (e.g., so they can teach better). Also, sometimes the "science results" are useful at the table. For example, see:
Agreed. What's your point?
Regards,
Dave
It's unfamiliarity not "unfamilairty," but I digress.
Yes, we settled that I misspelled Occam... just as we settled how a high and mighty prof could still stoop to argumentum ad hominem, despite all their high brow posturing ;-)
Thanks for reminding me.
Lou Figueroa
RE Rich 93's comment and Dave's reply -- sounds like ghost ball aiming.
I think there is a difference. In ghost ball aiming (sighting) one imagines the center of the ghost ball opposed to the contact point. In center ball aiming one uses the center of the CB as a sighting line and then estimates where the side of the cb relative to the center line (not the ghost ball) will strike the OB.
Personally, I do not look at the ghost ball location because it interferes with my sighting. I do compare the center line of the cb to the contact point as a track to the contact point.
This may not be what Rich or others use but it is not the same as ghost ball sighting. I think of it as track aiming. It is often difficult to use words to say what one does in a physical way. The effort is worth while as it helps to clairify what is going on for me at any rate. May not be scientific but science begins with cataloging one's observations and the observations of others. It is often known as descriptive research.
One of the most appealing aspects of the scientific method is that it has no respect for degrees, prior experience, or authoritarian pronouncements. It is simply empirical. Scientists engage in their activities because they do not know and seek to learn more from whatever source.
I think there is a difference. In ghost ball aiming (sighting) one imagines the center of the ghost ball opposed to the contact point. In center ball aiming one uses the center of the CB as a sighting line and then estimates where the side of the cb relative to the center line (not the ghost ball) will strike the OB.
Personally, I do not look at the ghost ball location because it interferes with my sighting. I do compare the center line of the cb to the contact point as a track to the contact point.
This may not be what Rich or others use but it is not the same as ghost ball sighting. I think of it as track aiming. It is often difficult to use words to say what one does in a physical way. The effort is worth while as it helps to clairify what is going on for me at any rate. May not be scientific but science begins with cataloging one's observations and the observations of others. It is often known as descriptive research.
One of the most appealing aspects of the scientific method is that it has no respect for degrees, prior experience, or authoritarian pronouncements. It is simply empirical. Scientists engage in their activities because they do not know and seek to learn more from whatever source.
Last edited:
You have a very good point there, brian. I actually should not read these kinds of threads. Shooting pool is basically very simple in my view - very difficult, but very simple nonetheless. I see no value in making it complicated.
TxSkin
LOL! When did we settle the latter, Lou? You're not as much fun as you used to be, you know. I think you're getting cranky in your old age. Maybe hormone rep[lacement [sic] therapy would help?
Have a nice run at the table if you get to the pool hall today. :smile:
TxSkin
We settled it a while back, but you saved me the trouble of looking for it, with your last post ;-)
Lou Figueroa
I guess logic (vs insults)
is too much to hope for
from a phd
I have traveled the entire length of the road, Dave. BS (we know what that is), MS (More of the Same), and PhD (Piled higher and Deeper).
The point is: just venting my frustration with these kinds of threads. That's all, I suppose. :wink:
TxSkin
With an MS you say "That's interesting."
With a PhD you say "hmm"
Arrogance comes in different forms!
Some wag said, "When you know that you do not know and you have learned to use the library, you no longer need to go to school." These are difficult lessons.
Many people who say they subscribe to science as a philosophical approach forget the canons of science.
I believe in the normal curve.
Thou shall accept the null hypothesis.
I will have no gods before the Z test.
To each his own belief system
With a PhD you say "hmm"
Arrogance comes in different forms!
Some wag said, "When you know that you do not know and you have learned to use the library, you no longer need to go to school." These are difficult lessons.
Many people who say they subscribe to science as a philosophical approach forget the canons of science.
I believe in the normal curve.
Thou shall accept the null hypothesis.
I will have no gods before the Z test.
To each his own belief system
Last edited:
Good points Joe. There are many ways to visualize how to get the CB to the necessary ghost-ball location: straight ghost-ball, contact-point-to-contact-point, bisect-and-pivot, double-the-distance, "intuition"/"feel" ("just seeing the angle"), etc. All methods require perception and visualization, hence the difficulty. I personally like the DAM approach; but everybody seems to "see" things differently, especially when it comes to aiming and sighting.
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
Rich93 said:
I guess it is, except I don't actually try to visualize a ghost ball as such. I never could do that either - the ghost ball just looks like a lot of empty space to me. It's more like this: through experience, I've learned that if I hit it like this it goes like that.
I guess the big drawback of this way of aiming is that you have to spend a lot of time on the table to learn to "see the paths". And there's no absolute certainty about it. It seems like you're always guessing - sometimes with 99.9% certainty (straight ins), sometimes with 50% (some backward cuts), sometimes with 25% (tough cuts a long way from the pocket). At least that's where I am now.
Last edited:
I also have trouble with back cuts. My visual perception and intuition is sometimes so bad on these, I even resort to the stick-pivot method at times (see NV 3.2 - Using the cue to help visualize the impact and aiming lines), especially when my confident is low.
Regards,
Dave
What makes you imagine we're more interested in your emotional reaction than you are in the thread?
pj
chgo
Patrick, you want me to identify for you the cause of an effect that doesn't exist? Sorry, man.
TxSkin
Depending on how steep, you can either:
- Sight CTE, offset a 1/2 ball (on the inside of the CTEL) and then pivot beyond center to impart outside english
- Sight 90/half, pivot to center
for extreme back-cut, sight 90/reverse90, pivot to center.
Not trying to push the system, just letting you know how to "sight" these, per the thread.
Lose that cue pivot technique... nobody in the universe does that
