It's far more productive to think of Ghost ball aiming as "a cluster separated by distance which is aligned towards the pocket". You can't see an imaginary ghost ball but when you're down on the shot, you can see the cluster separated by distance.
Ghost ball isn't perfect because of CIT but it's a good system to start with.
It's far more productive to think of Ghost ball aiming as "a cluster separated by distance which is aligned towards the pocket". You can't see an imaginary ghost ball but when you're down on the shot, you can see the cluster separated by distance.
Ghost ball isn't perfect because of CIT but it's a good system to start with.
As I said, your right and everyone else is wrong. You know that because no one will ever take you up on one of your bets. Proves your right every time. And by the way, I deal in comix not comics, but you knew that.
Sorry wasn't up on the lingo. I thought you dealt in comic books and comix was a play on words like CueStix is for Cue Sticks. Judging by your website I still can't tell the difference but unlike you I am open to learning.
Now, if you want to take me up on any of my bets then you can bet comix. More fun to read than the standard DC and Marvel fare anyway I bet.
If I make a comic or comix about pool will you sell it? I have the artist already and he's already done some work for me. Of course if I am permanently on your asshole list then never mind. I doubt I will be changing any time soon so you can continue to stalk me through the forums any time you want to chime in about what a dick I am whenever you think I am being one. Would be great though if once in a while you could try to inject something on topic instead of just piping up to tell how you think I am a jerk. I am. So what? Live with it.
If your assumptions are true everyone would be a world beater. But theres that thing called natural ability or let's take the word drive you used above. That little word in itself separates ability to reach that upper level or stay below. Some people have natural drive to be millionares, presidents, etc. and will acheive it, others think about it but will only shovel sh** for a check. You don't build what someone is born inside with, anyone can become better then they currently are at anything, but the level of how good will have limitations on each individual.
And no thanks for the bet, I haven't got time for a 15 page woofing contest on actual terms & techniques of the game. I'd likely lose anyway on that subject, I am not real up on the techno talk, I prefer the HAM style, Hit A Million Balls.
How do you figure? Not everyone is ABLE to put the right set of conditions together.
That's why there are GREAT singers who are every bit as talented as the superstars you know who toil as housewives.
It should be a pretty easy concept for you to follow that if a greater number of people are able to have the same access to the same high level training and experience then there will be a greater number of world class level players.
You have your opinion and I have mine. DRIVE comes from within and it's not necessarily something someone is born with. There are plenty of stories of people with seemingly no ambition who had nowhere careers who then decided to change their life and became successes. And plenty of other stories about seemingly talented people who never amounted to much.
As a famous magician once said, any ten year old can do what I do as long as he has 20 years of experience.
What I say is true.
I can take ANY person and with the right amount of time and training I can turn them into a world beater at pool. Can I turn them into the BEST player who ever lived? No, THAT part is the magical part where fortune has to smile on them in addition to having the right brain chemistry that combines to make what we call "heart".
To bring this BACK to the topic. GB is fine for some people who have the spatial awareness to use it consistently. But it's not necessarily the best way for everyone. Other people, who are equally skilled in all other aspects of the game, may do better with other methods of lining up than to use any of the various GB methods.
Sean Leinen says he can visualize the GB as if it is a real ball and has the skill to deliver the real cueball to the visualized GB position. He is a hundred ball runner so why should I doubt what he says? Rodney Morris says he uses portions of the ball to aim with, he's a US Open champion why should I doubt him? Stevie Moore is clear about what he uses and it's not GB.
In other words GB is fine for those who can use it accurately enough. But for others, like me, it's not fine. And that not because someone is more talented than I am it's simply because they see things differently than I do. They get down on the ball aiming at an imaginary spot that they see as fully visible and I get down on the ball having used the objects which I can see.
My test represents MY thoughts on why some people struggle to use GB and invites anyone who cares to duplicate to see for themselves how they do.
It's not a test to see who is talented and will never get better as you want to make it out to be.
Actually it's the DRIVE to get better which makes me do things like this as I want to understand WHY some techniques work better than others.
As I said, your right and everyone else is wrong. You know that because no one will ever take you up on one of your bets. Proves your right every time. And by the way, I deal in comix not comics, but you knew that.
Not my style but whatever floats your boat. Some people like the homophobic stuff.
edit: Learned about S.Clay Wilson, amazing art there. I can see why you appreciate the underground work. Still you're an awfully judgmental guy for someone who lives in an alternative universe.
Actually, the piece is not homophobic and if you knew the 40+ year history of the Checkered Demon and his relation to Ruby the Dyke you would know that but I do not and would not expect that of you. As for women's reaction to the piece... laughter. So, I'll give you a break and not pretend to know what universe you live in and do the same for me.
As for your post above, I agree with the part that ghost ball is not for everyone (try imagining a 3-d gb instead of a spot on the table) but the point of my previous post was that your not being able to draw a dot at any certain distance from a sphere is irrelevant to weather your can use gb or not. If that makes me judgmental in your opinion than maybe you can show some scientific proof of the relationship instead of attacking me. Saying you can't do A and you also can't do B does not prove the two are related. As I said try looking at the gb as a 3-d ball, you can not see the bottom of the ob so why try and see the bottom of the gb?
Oh, and yes, there was a lot of work in the piece, nearly 300 hours.
Well gee, why I'm not surprised that a pissing match broke out. Seems to happen wherever JB Case goes.
To be clear, there is no aiming in pool. It is all visualiztion and practice. There seems to be a trend in wanting to think of aiming in pool as if aiming a gun. There is no comparison between the two.
In aiming a gun, you have three, real world, you can go up and touch them objects to align. I'm referring to a iron sights gun. You got the rear, front sight and the bullseye to align up plus they are on a straight line, nothing like aiming a shot in pool.
Show me a contact point on any ball. By this I mean, pick it up, point something that is real like in the sights on the gun.
Everyone is seeing things in their head, and I laugh whenever someone says they aim at things they can see even tho it is only in there head.
There is nothing in shot making that is intuitive to a human being such as walking. Somethings you do can get to that level if done enough time properly over years.
As, example, this past weekend on TCM, as a filler, they showed a old clip of a baseball player. This guy was throwing strikes.....blindfolded, then he threw to second base, blindfold.
He also was catching flew balls down the back of his jeresy. All tricks for sure, and all not intuitive, but practiced enough to become so.
Same with any visualiztion method you use for shot making. Once again, ghost ball aiming as I am describing has nothing to do with ghost ball visualiztion.
What I am describing exists on all shots regardless of what you do or see to get the CB to make the OB go where you want. For me, knowing this helps in gauging if what I want to do with a shot is asking just too much based on the ball layout on the table. I saw alot of that this weekend during a APA tourney. People just trying to do too much with a shot.
Also, knowing these concepts helps in determining exactly why you missed. If you can not evaluate why you missed, you will only go so far. Runnning off to get lessons or buy the latest gizmo is not always the answer.
To me, systems can not compensate for any spin. Why, because there are just too many varibles for any system to do so. From understanding the concepts of ghost ball aiming (NOT Ghost ball visualization), you have more info to use to better gauge what you need to in order to properly compensate for spin.
Here are more pics that are follow ups to the first. The first shows the the impact zone and the affects of ball layout has on it. The second hows the CB contact location based on the angle between the CB/OB.
The impact zone or as Phil Chappelle calls it margin of error(which is why alot of systems work on one part of the table and not others) is that area the CB can impact the OB and make it go in the pocket, thats anywhere in the pocket.
DWG 2-3 shows how the OB location to the pocket affects the impact zones size. What really is not show is that the angle between the CB/OB affects how much of that area can be impacted. The greater the angle, the less of the zone you can hit. This helps me in knowing when and when not to try a cheat a pocket shot.
DWG 4. If ya need help understanding this one, go back to DWG 1. It does show why on shallow angle shots it can appear that you are aiming at the OB contact point, when you really aren't in regards to the cue stick center line.
I believe that control is the biggest part of playing well. By control I mean knowing what to do when and no more and no less. These concepts help me do so.
So, I decided on a name to use when anyone asks me now.....center line aiming. I realized I was baseing everything on the center line of the pocket, balls, and cue stick.
Now, think of this. It has been said that graphics would help pool on TV.
Well, develop a graphics progam thats based on these drawings to overlay on the shot. The terms along with the graphics can be used discuss and inform the audience on the whys and how a shot was made or missed.
A animation in the grahic that shows the moving the GB ball around the OB changes the OB balls direction of travel and then doing that at different distance will show just the level of precision is need to consistently hit center pocket.
There needs to be some common terms and graphics used in discussing shot making and I think these are a good start. Why, because these have nothing to do with how one gets the CB to the object ball.
How do you figure? Not everyone is ABLE to put the right set of conditions together.
That's why there are GREAT singers who are every bit as talented as the superstars you know who toil as housewives.
It should be a pretty easy concept for you to follow that if a greater number of people are able to have the same access to the same high level training and experience then there will be a greater number of world class level players.
You have your opinion and I have mine. DRIVE comes from within and it's not necessarily something someone is born with. There are plenty of stories of people with seemingly no ambition who had nowhere careers who then decided to change their life and became successes. And plenty of other stories about seemingly talented people who never amounted to much.
As a famous magician once said, any ten year old can do what I do as long as he has 20 years of experience.
What I say is true.
I can take ANY person and with the right amount of time and training I can turn them into a world beater at pool. Can I turn them into the BEST player who ever lived? No, THAT part is the magical part where fortune has to smile on them in addition to having the right brain chemistry that combines to make what we call "heart".
To bring this BACK to the topic. GB is fine for some people who have the spatial awareness to use it consistently. But it's not necessarily the best way for everyone. Other people, who are equally skilled in all other aspects of the game, may do better with other methods of lining up than to use any of the various GB methods.
Sean Leinen says he can visualize the GB as if it is a real ball and has the skill to deliver the real cueball to the visualized GB position. He is a hundred ball runner so why should I doubt what he says? Rodney Morris says he uses portions of the ball to aim with, he's a US Open champion why should I doubt him? Stevie Moore is clear about what he uses and it's not GB.
In other words GB is fine for those who can use it accurately enough. But for others, like me, it's not fine. And that not because someone is more talented than I am it's simply because they see things differently than I do. They get down on the ball aiming at an imaginary spot that they see as fully visible and I get down on the ball having used the objects which I can see.
My test represents MY thoughts on why some people struggle to use GB and invites anyone who cares to duplicate to see for themselves how they do.
It's not a test to see who is talented and will never get better as you want to make it out to be.
Actually it's the DRIVE to get better which makes me do things like this as I want to understand WHY some techniques work better than others.
HAHAHA yeah you can turn anyone into a world beater I am sure. Just like you are a world beater yourself. I remember a thread about you playing a guy on here at the SBE the year before last. 15 - 20 pages of woofing and all you played was looking at the camera when he approached your booth. You are a tool for sure, I would seriously think you would get tired of typing pages after pages to people on here. The last I knew JB was known for making cases not world champions.
How about I send you a bill for the time I wasted looking at that junk? Quit stroking your ego by 'overeducating' (telling us how wrong we all are) and find something useful to do.
And what is WRONG with being homophobic? It seems to be a lot more natural than homosexuality.
I've looked at BD's website. There are some nice cues on his site. In all fairness, you should mention the other cues as well. Thank you though, for posting his site. I might not have seen it otherwise.
HAHAHA yeah you can turn anyone into a world beater I am sure. Just like you are a world beater yourself. I remember a thread about you playing a guy on here at the SBE the year before last. 15 - 20 pages of woofing and all you played was looking at the camera when he approached your booth. You are a tool for sure, I would seriously think you would get tired of typing pages after pages to people on here. The last I knew JB was known for making cases not world champions.
Then your reading comprehension is seriously flawed. At the end of that thread I clearly said that playing him was off the table and that IF he showed up I would tell him what I thought of him and I did.
Go back and look at the thread. I did everything except offer free blow jobs to get the action down. All I asked for was to set a time. I gave up on every other point INCLUDING freezing up the money. I endured name calling from post number two.
So if that's your idea of ducking action then it's not any wonder that the simple concepts here elude you.
There are a couple youtube videos which clearly show that I did in fact do exactly what I said I would do. My YouTube is jbideastoo
Now, instead of namecalling how about you prove your side? Oh, that's right, YOU CAN'T.
But I can point to endless studies that proper training produces world class performers. I can point to endless examples where advances in training techniques have improved performance for athletes across the board.
So maybe you just like to live in this little fantasy world where you think Efren Reyes is just born and not made but you're wrong. Efren Reyes slept under a pool table and was in REAL action since he was 9. By the time he got to adulthood he ALREADY had a lifetime's worth of action under his belt. People tend to forget that.
Now you can continue to be a _______ (use what little imagination you have) or you can contribute to the discussion. I am betting that you choose to stay as you are.
To be clear, there is no aiming in pool. It is all visualiztion and practice. There seems to be a trend in wanting to think of aiming in pool as if aiming a gun. There is no comparison between the two.
As a PALMA and F-class shooter, I will disagree for reasons that need not be discussed on a pool/billiards forum.
Show me a contact point on any ball. By this I mean, pick it up, point something that is real like in the sights on the gun.
Everyone is seeing things in their head, and I laugh whenever someone says they aim at things they can see even tho it is only in there head.
<snip>
Same with any visualiztion method you use for shot making. Once again, ghost ball aiming as I am describing has nothing to do with ghost ball visualiztion.
On a difficult shot, I will find an irregularity on the cloth {lint, mark, chalk residue,...} and use it as an aiming reference point. Sometimes there are marks on the surface of the ball that can also be used, or marks on the rails beyond the actual point of aim.
But, I think you are making a big mistake. Due to the width of the pocket there is a margin for error involved with any shot. The application of spin to the CB increases the range at which contact can be made where the OB still drops. While the range of contact increases, the actual margin of error decreases {You can spin it out as easily as spin it in.}
In any event, GH aiming is just about getting the aim within about 1mm of where you want the contact point to be. After determining this small contact range, you then have to add compensations for spin, speed, and rail effects to actualy pot the ball.
You stated earlier that noone actually sees a GB and aims at that. Your statement is incorrect. I do, and have risen into a strong APA 7 rating where I play. I see the lines* on the table, GB included just like the dancing Hippo's scene in Fantasia. Perhaps its because I am an engineer by trade fully skilled in the math and in the mechanics of pool physics.
So, I decided on a name to use when anyone asks me now.....center line aiming. I realized I was baseing everything on the center line of the pocket, balls, and cue stick.
Now, think of this. It has been said that graphics would help pool on TV.
Well, develop a graphics progam thats based on these drawings to overlay on the shot. The terms along with the graphics can be used discuss and inform the audience on the whys and how a shot was made or missed.
A animation in the grahic that shows the moving the GB ball around the OB changes the OB balls direction of travel and then doing that at different distance will show just the level of precision is need to consistently hit center pocket.
There needs to be some common terms and graphics used in discussing shot making and I think these are a good start. Why, because these have nothing to do with how one gets the CB to the object ball.
My thought on aiming is that it all begins with the body alignment. If your body is out of position then you will have do something to get the cue into any position that's even close to where it needs to be.
No matter what the shot is there is only a fairly finite range of possible cue stick positions that will allow for the cue ball to be struck in such a way as to contact the object ball properly to make it go to the target, whether that target is a pocket or a different place on the table.
So with that in mind a person has two problems. Lining up right to begin with and then delivering the stoke accurately. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Well, I USED to think that aiming comes first and then execution. And I still think that for higher level players. For lower level players I think that developing a good stroke is more important because even though they don't know how to aim with a bad stroke they will miss more than they should during the times when they do manage to get lined up right.
For higher level players I think that it's easy to get complacent and just jump on balls thinking that you are lined up right and everything feels right and you shoot and miss. You don't miss much because most of the time you are right on target. But against better players the misses hurt more.
I find that when I bear down on aiming then I do better.
As a PALMA and F-class shooter, I will disagree for reasons that need not be discussed on a pool/billiards forum.
On a difficult shot, I will find an irregularity on the cloth {lint, mark, chalk residue,...} and use it as an aiming reference point. Sometimes there are marks on the surface of the ball that can also be used, or marks on the rails beyond the actual point of aim.
But, I think you are making a big mistake. Due to the width of the pocket there is a margin for error involved with any shot. The application of spin to the CB increases the range at which contact can be made where the OB still drops. While the range of contact increases, the actual margin of error decreases {You can spin it out as easily as spin it in.}
In any event, GH aiming is just about getting the aim within about 1mm of where you want the contact point to be. After determining this small contact range, you then have to add compensations for spin, speed, and rail effects to actualy pot the ball.
You stated earlier that noone actually sees a GB and aims at that. Your statement is incorrect. I do, and have risen into a strong APA 7 rating where I play. I see the lines* on the table, GB included just like the dancing Hippo's scene in Fantasia. Perhaps its because I am an engineer by trade fully skilled in the math and in the mechanics of pool physics.
Well, I did post a drawing that shows what I call the impact zone just for one of the reasons you stated. It's back a page I think. It also shows how the angle and distance the OB is from the pocket affects the size of that impact zone.
I never said no one see's a ghost ball. I said that ghost ball aiming, which I now will call center line aiming, is not the same thing as ghost ball visualization which is what you do.
I do not. I find the space where the CB needs to be and fell it. The CB wants to go home, so I just send it home.
Another way to look at the OB contact point is as referernce point that is used find the actual contact point based on all the things you mentioned.
Oh, as a OA tester, I made engineers cry. Engineers don't scare me.
Any system can be used to compensate for spin or any other variable. If there is a baseline that the shooter is confident is providing the center ball aiming line then the shooter can just as easily figure out how to adjust from that baseline to use side spin if such compensation is needed.
And I know that the this next statement will drive the "it's all feel" crowd absolutely nuts but there are a few people who participate in this forum who have taken certain systems and figured out how to aim with side spin according to set rules with great accuracy and consistency. Out of respect for their desire not to be embroiled in the contentious and attacking manner that others have been subjected to I won't name names. Suffice it to say that there are ways to aim with side spin where a person can reduce judgment to a bare minimum, to the point where it feels like no guessing at all.
Oh please. Now you are going to act like you are so innocent? You have been one of the main antagonists on this forum for several years any time the topic of aiming is discussed.
Huh? The act of pointing something at something else is aiming.
It is all visualiztion and practice. There seems to be a trend in wanting to think of aiming in pool as if aiming a gun. There is no comparison between the two.
In aiming a gun, you have three, real world, you can go up and touch them objects to align. I'm referring to a iron sights gun. You got the rear, front sight and the bullseye to align up plus they are on a straight line, nothing like aiming a shot in pool.
Show me a contact point on any ball. By this I mean, pick it up, point something that is real like in the sights on the gun.
Well I am pretty close to losing several thousand dollars so I will just say that the way I play pool uses very real objects that I can actually touch.
Everyone is seeing things in their head, and I laugh whenever someone says they aim at things they can see even tho it is only in there head.
There is nothing in shot making that is intuitive to a human being such as walking. Somethings you do can get to that level if done enough time properly over years.
Actually shotmaking is very intuitive at the basest level. Anyone can look at a shot and instantly understand what they should do. Only they don't always have the coordination or the visual acuity to get lined up right. No one gets on a pool table and shoots the cue ball in the completely wrong direction when trying to make a direct shot. You can take any person off the street who has never even held a cue before and prove that in one shot. Even with zero knoweldge of how to play and zero instruction they will line up in the right direction and attempt to send the cue ball to the right place.
As, example, this past weekend on TCM, as a filler, they showed a old clip of a baseball player. This guy was throwing strikes.....blindfolded, then he threw to second base, blindfold.
He also was catching flew balls down the back of his jeresy. All tricks for sure, and all not intuitive, but practiced enough to become so.
That's an example of a highly developed skill. That doesn't mean that standing on the mound a pitcher doesn't have an intuitive sense of where the rest of the bases are.
Intuition is built of two things. Sensual reaction to input and intellectual reaction to input. Your senses give you input that your brain reacts to immediately. Your knowledge gives your brain information to either suppress the natural reaction or act more decisively on it.
A baby left to it's own devices will learn to crawl and walk and run. A baby that is helped will learn these things faster and as such will have more brain power to devote to learning other things.
Same with any visualiztion method you use for shot making. Once again, ghost ball aiming as I am describing has nothing to do with ghost ball visualiztion.
I have to admit I don't understand the difference. Seems to me that both methods relay on visualizing something in a space where nothing tangible exists.
What I am describing exists on all shots regardless of what you do or see to get the CB to make the OB go where you want. For me, knowing this helps in gauging if what I want to do with a shot is asking just too much based on the ball layout on the table. I saw alot of that this weekend during a APA tourney. People just trying to do too much with a shot.
I imagine that any APA event would produce a much higher number of people doing things that are unproductive at the pool table. Not sure that using APA players would be a good example of anything to do with playing pool.
Also, knowing these concepts helps in determining exactly why you missed. If you can not evaluate why you missed, you will only go so far. Runnning off to get lessons or buy the latest gizmo is not always the answer.
So now you are saying that people don't need the Arrow?
To me, systems can not compensate for any spin. Why, because there are just too many varibles for any system to do so. From understanding the concepts of ghost ball aiming (NOT Ghost ball visualization), you have more info to use to better gauge what you need to in order to properly compensate for spin.
Here are more pics that are follow ups to the first. The first shows the the impact zone and the affects of ball layout has on it. The second hows the CB contact location based on the angle between the CB/OB.
The impact zone or as Phil Chappelle calls it margin of error(which is why alot of systems work on one part of the table and not others) is that area the CB can impact the OB and make it go in the pocket, thats anywhere in the pocket.
DWG 2-3 shows how the OB location to the pocket affects the impact zones size. What really is not show is that the angle between the CB/OB affects how much of that area can be impacted. The greater the angle, the less of the zone you can hit. This helps me in knowing when and when not to try a cheat a pocket shot.
DWG 4. If ya need help understanding this one, go back to DWG 1. It does show why on shallow angle shots it can appear that you are aiming at the OB contact point, when you really aren't in regards to the cue stick center line.
I believe that control is the biggest part of playing well. By control I mean knowing what to do when and no more and no less. These concepts help me do so.
I will leave discussion of all this to someone else. I know you are at heart a student of the game who also wants to help others play better pool. I have saved all your diagrams and I will be taking them to the table to try and see things as you see them. Thank you for taking the time to make them and post them.
For now, ignore CB B. The only difference in these to shots is distance from the pocket.
With the 5 that close to the pocket, I know that the impact zone is bigger than the impact zone on the 4.
Rememeber, this is center line aiming and now the OB contact point is used as a reference point. At times, they both can be in the same location.
Knowing the imact zone on the 4 is smaller than the 5, I'd be less likey to try to cheat the pocket with the 4, whereas, with the larger impact zone on the 5, I would.
I would also be less likely to use alot of side spin on the 4 as well. With the location of the 5, its in what I call the spin zone. Any spin can be used, whereas the 4 is outside the spin zone.
As for spin, remember the OB reference point is on the OB center line. For a pure shot, meaning one where the CB does impact the OB when the reference point and contact point are in the same location on the OB.
Hopefully you understand spin and the affects of it on the CB and OB.
The phrase "need to hit fuller" is ofton heard. When using outside spin, a fuller hit is need on the OB. Well, since the balls are round, you can not hit the CB any fuller.
What this really means is the the OB contact point needs to rotate away from the OB refernce point x amount in order to put the OB in the pocket. That x amount is the compensation needed for the how the shot is going to be done.
So I sight from behind the OB on its center line, which its's reference point is on. Depending on gut feelings from table time using all kinds of spins in all kinds of conditions, I find that space on the table, which by the way on on the aiming arc, where the CB wants to be and then put it there.
CB B shows how just moving the CB location of the 5 will limit how much of the availble impact zone there is you can hit on the 5.
I hate to say it , but it all comes down to monkey see, monkey do.
