Hi, Patrick:
I'll take up your points in order. You don’t owe me an apology, you have the right to keep writing “No, you’re wrong, Matt” several dozen times without citing facts, but you did upset Captain Pickard, and I cannot abide that.
Aim Primer 2: Glossary Of Key Terms
The contact points on the cue ball and object ball are commonly called the "cue ball contact point" and the "object ball contact point", not "contact point" and "cue ball point". - **but I’m not a common kind of fellow, and I think cue ball point helps spare verbage in a 6,000-word article. I’ve used the term before in InsidePool, About.com and elsewhere.
"Center ball" is a point, not "equivalent in diameter to a cue tip". - **We both know it’s not the whole tip, the center of the cue tip hits the area on a perfect strike; point-to-point, but one aims the tip at the center; “a point” begs the question “which point where?” from my students and you’ll appreciate I try to write in lay terms rather than complex physics terms.
You did however ignore I demonstrated the correct knowledge where I wrote, “It is difficult to learn aiming in the sport of pocket billiards. Two colliding spheres impact at their equators at one tiny point of contact.”
"Pocket openings" don't have "curved edges" (except in England?). ** I apologize for not writing “center” of the pocket openings, but you are managing to criticize the term without reading it, clearly this is the case because I wrote,
“Pocket Openings -- The six curved edges of a pool table's pocket along the cloth, turned convex toward the player, off which pool balls fall into the depth of the pockets.”
"Aim line" is used in a non-standard way and is likely to be confused with "shot line". **I’ve used aim line consistently in my book, at InsidePool, and at About.com because it’s where people aim, a wonderful line of aim.
I’m not abrogating a pool rulebook from a governing body of our sport, I’m using a nonstandard term, yes, and the glossary I wrote aids the reader throughout for reference.
No pro or teaching pro I’ve ever used the term with claimed confusion. But “aim line” helps my students, and I wish everyone would follow my lead here.
"Chalk" isn't soft clay; it's chalk impregnated with silica sand. And it doesn't "aid cue ball roll and player feedback"; it prevents miscues - **it increases friction with the ball and time between cue tip and cue ball - even for those fractions of a second, it increases feel, but this is arguable.
But telling readers “chalk is chalk,” Patrick, as you do in your rebuke, seems a bit circular to me; chalk is soft and is a clay-like substance when it isn’t dried out, right?
Regardless I think arguing with me about chalk is not helping anyone improve their aim on cut shots.
A spherical ball does not have "one continuous edge"; it has one continuous surface. **Yes, that is correct, but I’m writing in lay terms and pool jargon, and we speak of center-to-edge and edge-to-edge aim, and not “surface-to-surface” aim.
For people fooling about with edge aim, I like to point out that the vanishing edge is hard to discern. That’s all I meant by “continuous edge”. I do apologize.
Aim Primer 3: Stance And Stroke
Most pool shots are not straight shots. ** most pool cut shots may be played along a straight aim line (shot line) - you are incorrect. Who was the first to write in book form, “Most pool shots are straight shots…”? Was it Ray Martin in 99 Shots? I don’t remember.
"Squat down to the table, bending form the hips and not the waist" like "a weight lifter poist to lift one side of the pool table" is wrong. **No, it is absolutely not wrong. Most strong players resemble a golfer in that their knees are springy and ready for action - bending at the waist is what some do but it leads to back and neck problems later…
"Leave the head off the cue stick to one side" is wrong. **No, it isn't - putting the chin over the cue stick is a canard I will continue to address as I have in numerous articles online and off…
Aim Primer 4: Instinct Vs. Fraction Aim
"Fraction aim" is a specific kind of system. It does not include everything but "instinct". **Nowhere in article 4 do I say or imply what you are saying here, and the word "everything" literally does not appear in Aim Primer #4 - sorry, but not sure what you are saying here, perhaps you can clarify?
"Most amateurs who aim by instinct miss often" is misleading. Most amateurs miss often no matter how they aim, and those who aim "by instinct" don't miss more often than others. **Is your evidence anecdotal or theoretical? Most amateurs benefit from a geometric or visualization system, and most pros who cut by instinct began with one of the systems as outlined - I've helped hundreds of players improve over instinct systems.
I am on trial here, not you, but I'd encourage you to provide facts when you respond to someone's work rather than keep repeating, "No, that's not true, Matt."
"Professionals usually began with some system" is wrong. **No, that's absolutely true. Almost every pro began with a ghost ball or contact point method before they drilled in to their unconscious. I know you know this and I’m surprised at you.
--I write about aim when others are afraid to because there are good systems that really work. I’d refer you to Shari Strauch’s famous piece, for one of many examples.
You have dozens of fine pros in her review of years ago saying “I started with ghost ball,” or “I started by aiming at the contact point,” and those are two of the methods in my article series.
"There is no point of reference to discuss shot making without a system" is wrong. **No, I am correct. There's no standard point of reference to discuss anything without a system to define some base terms.
If someone truly aims by instinct, all they can respond is, "I just kind of aim it over there somewhere, I dunno," but someone who says "just go back of the ball" is aiming at the contact point, and someone who "kind of sees where the cue ball will go at impact" is edge-to-edge or ghost ball, etc. - they are sharing a system two people can communicate inside. I'd challenge you to define how any two people discuss ANY academic subject about anything using Western logic without defining some terms. But you'd be defining terms while you define that line of argument!
“A medium speed shot sliced thin with two tips of bottom right english” provides reference points. “I kind of hit the cue ball like this to hit that ball,” provides only abstractions.
"The sole thing an instinct player can discern on a miss is whether they overcut or undercut a ball, and then with scant frame of reference for future correction" is misleading. That's true of all aiming. **No, it's not true of instinct aiming. A geometric player who understands the effects of any factor, say speed on throw, can report, “I overcut that shot, AND I hit it too slowly, AND I was looking with a parallax view and standing too high over the shot, etc.”
Aim Primer 5: Contact Point And Half Ball Line
"The full line" is a non-standard term without practical use. **Welcome to the standard, sir! The full line is exceptionally practical, as a very large plurality if not majority of top players put their head behind the full line to assess cut shots.
Now, while there are some who line up the points of parallel aim and stand behind it, and others who line on the contact point or ghost ball… Dr. Dave A. took a survey once of good players regarding this, and I've surveyed pros and teaching pros as well. See below for more.
"All aim systems have the player stand along the extended full line to begin aim" is wrong. **You misquote me. It's actually, "The full line is vital to know since with few exceptions, all aim systems have the player stand along the extended full line to begin aim..." which is correct. MOST fine players start using the full line, which is why I wrote "EXCEPTIONS". You are misquoting me again.
I’ve had very fine students who can play strong yet gotten to a slump, and pointed out the full line assessment pre-shot routine, and solved a lot of their problems immediately. Try it, Patrick, you'll like it!
"Half Ball - One Pro Aim Method" is wrong. Half ball isn't an "aim method"; it's simply one easily-identifiable alignment. **You are taking a page headline out of context, not a statement of fact or a complete sentence - The standard diagram I’ve shown is a half-ball cut. I am in that page showing one of a number of pro aim methods to shoot, fraction aim, which the illustration is clearly demonstrating.
Half-Ball is not an aim method, it’s a standard convention in fraction aim, but to see the giant diagram on the page and read the text and then say that… I’m a little surprised.
Aim Primer 6: Fraction, Edge-To-Edge, Perfect And Ghost Ball Aim
How are fractional overlaps useful in aiming? **Well, like parallel aim, they come in handy for visualizing certain thin shots, like when the cue ball is near the short rail and the object ball is up table to be cut a bit "backwards" to a corner pocket. But I'm not insisting you visualize overlaps, though I can send you references for those pros who do it with success.
Is "Perfect Aim" correctly described? **In very brief lay terms, yes. There are many threads online about what Gene A. has advocated already. And I think there are some benefits to his line of reasoning.
"Limitations of Fraction Aim = shots between fractions" is way too simplistic. **You are severely misquoting me. I tried to keep it curt online but wrote,
"1. A half ball hit describes a cut shot angled at a bit less than 30 degrees, and a quarter-ball hit has a cut shot cue ball/object ball angle of 48.6 degrees. But pool is astounding in its complexity with millions of shots offered and at all angles between 0 and 90 degrees. How should a 53½ degree shot be measured, or a 75¾ degree shot? With what fractions of balls eclipsed?” and I next wrote,
“2. Most players have trouble with sighting small fractions of hit. Even those players with sharper than normal eyesight have trouble aiming at one-eighth to one-sixteenth of a ball or less across the length of the table.”
And I’m still correct here as well. Very, very few players can see 1/16 or 1/32 of a ball going to the far short rail with their head 10 feet away or more from the ball with any clarity, and certainly it's hard to assess a thin cut down the rail near impact to follow through on the method. You're being patently unfair here.
"Edge to Edge Aim" is simply a made-up term for aiming "by feel". And it has nothing to do with "edge to edge". **That is absolutely incorrect, not what I wrote in my article, and you are defaming people including Willie Mosconi who used it at times for certain shots.
And it’s not aiming by feel, Patrick, it’s aiming by using portions or fractions of balls as visualizations.
Aim Primer 7: Ghost Ball Vs. Contact Point Aim
Ghost ball: "Other methods let the player aim at real objects instead" is wrong. **No, it isn't. On a thin cut, ghost ball center is aiming a stick into blank space or a cloth spot. Contact point aim, for one example, involves aiming at a ball and not blank space.
Now, one can affirm they are shooting ghost ball while they look solely at the contact point or focus eyesight at an edge/portion/spot, but I've addressed that elsewhere at my site and at this forum.
"Reasons why contact aim remains highly effective as an aiming method" are all laughably wrong except:
"5. Good players tend to subconsciously refine aim to account for a variety of factors." **You'll have to cite the facts. And I've defended those reasons adequately online and at another AZ Billiards thread.
And here’s the issue, many top players understand and affirm those points, and aim at the contact point regardless.
I'm not offended that you use the word "laughably" but I'd appreciate more (any?) citations of fact and not mere ad homonym attacks.
Patrick, I've read much of your other billiards work online and I respect your intelligence. I can only surmise that you scanned my articles very quickly after being offended by my glossary of terms, for which I sincerely apologize.
But I hope everyone will join me in saying "aim line" and not "shot line", for one example of a dog I have in this fight, because it may be "non-standard" but it sure makes more sense to me and my students.
Please help me lead the way in having a vigorous discussion about facts without merely saying "No, sorry, Matt, wrong again..." -- Aren't you tired of that attitude at AZ? I'm certain you are and didn't mean to take my hard work on a 6,000-word series of articles with 15 diagrams so lightly.
Thank you and I apologize for my length; I've got to stand up for the facts here, and, though not as important as your lack of facts, for myself.
