aiming could not be easier, but it could also be incorrect
i have had private discussions with people and have tested the above method for accuracy on a pool table. i am confident i was doing everything correct as a result of my discussions (thanks everybody!), and it is positively a fact in my mind, the above 4 aim points DO NOT cover all shots on a pool table. there are many cases where the shot will be in between 2 of the above aims. many of you already know this of course.
this makes sense in light of the following experiment: if you set up a certain shot and aim the cb at 1/2 coverage, shoot, then mark the table where the ball hits the rail (or the pocket, just mark where it hits). subsequently, set up the same exact shot, aim at 1/4 coverage, shoot, then mark the table where that ball hits the rail (or pocket). the space inbetween the two marks roughly represents the angles that this system doesn't account for. are the proponents of this system saying that these angles never come up on a pool table?
i do find some use in the system, but my problem is i don't understand how people know when the shot is on one of these in between angles. it would scare me to use it in fear that i may get an in between angle and miss, whereas if i used feel i would have given myself a better chance perhaps.
by the way, not trying to start an argument here but i wanted to respond to one other thing, which im not even sure if it was in this particular thread. joe T (i know joe's system differs from the one above) i'm sure is a nice enough guy and a good player. but, i feel that his post about system vs non-system use should (he said using a system is better) not be considered because he makes money off selling a system. imo, he'd be stupid to say anything else. i only mention it because he seems like a highly influencial member and i think there is a little conflict of interest in this case.
8ball said:Take 2 balls and hold them together towards a light source and you will get an idea of just how small the 'contact point" on the balls actually is. When you consider the circumference of the ball it truly demonstrates how difficult it would be to try and hit a "spot" on the ball!
Now for the good news, there are only 5 shots you need to know when aiming. When you look a the object ball you want to "cover it" with the cueball!
1.) full coverage (straight-in shot)
2.) 3/4 coverage
3.) 1/2 coverage
4.) 1/4 coverage
5.) THIN cut!
Aiming could not be easier!
i have had private discussions with people and have tested the above method for accuracy on a pool table. i am confident i was doing everything correct as a result of my discussions (thanks everybody!), and it is positively a fact in my mind, the above 4 aim points DO NOT cover all shots on a pool table. there are many cases where the shot will be in between 2 of the above aims. many of you already know this of course.
this makes sense in light of the following experiment: if you set up a certain shot and aim the cb at 1/2 coverage, shoot, then mark the table where the ball hits the rail (or the pocket, just mark where it hits). subsequently, set up the same exact shot, aim at 1/4 coverage, shoot, then mark the table where that ball hits the rail (or pocket). the space inbetween the two marks roughly represents the angles that this system doesn't account for. are the proponents of this system saying that these angles never come up on a pool table?
i do find some use in the system, but my problem is i don't understand how people know when the shot is on one of these in between angles. it would scare me to use it in fear that i may get an in between angle and miss, whereas if i used feel i would have given myself a better chance perhaps.
by the way, not trying to start an argument here but i wanted to respond to one other thing, which im not even sure if it was in this particular thread. joe T (i know joe's system differs from the one above) i'm sure is a nice enough guy and a good player. but, i feel that his post about system vs non-system use should (he said using a system is better) not be considered because he makes money off selling a system. imo, he'd be stupid to say anything else. i only mention it because he seems like a highly influencial member and i think there is a little conflict of interest in this case.
