When Ghost Ball isn't
- Thread starter duckie
- Start date
I take the opposite approach JB
I make videos and make everyone think I play much better than I do, then I have to sulk off to my house with an empty wallet....
Jaden
p.s. anyone wanna give me the seven??? Hey anyone can play worse than normal on video, but it takes real talent to make people think you run three packs when you have trouble running three balls.
I make videos and make everyone think I play much better than I do, then I have to sulk off to my house with an empty wallet....
Jaden
p.s. anyone wanna give me the seven??? Hey anyone can play worse than normal on video, but it takes real talent to make people think you run three packs when you have trouble running three balls.
Last edited:
actually John for a ghost ball person that spot would be 1 and 1/8 inches just saying maybe you are seeing ghost ball all wrong.
If you froze two balls at the foot spot, I bet a pro can tell if they are pointing to a pocket or not if he stood at the other end.
How do they aim carom ? I'm guessing they also know the tangent line from looking at any shot .
From the object ball center to the center of the ghost ball is 2.25". Or if you are measuring from the outermost edge of the object ball then it is 1.125" from that point.
Which is my point. I challenge any of you to consistently place your tip on the ghost ball center.
I am certain that none of you can do it accurately all the time. You can certainly estimate it and some people will be much better at that than others. You are a case maker so I would assume that you can estimate the thickness of a hide within a half of a millimeter. I can most of the time. But sometimes I am off by a mm even with all my experience.
Like I have said a zillion times, if you use GB and it works for you then don't change. Doesn't work for me so well and something else does where I am looking at physical objects that exist and don't have to estimate the GB center.
Some people claim that they can see the GB as if it were a real object. I think that is fantastic and should make life much easier for them when they play. In that case they are not estimating but instead are hallucinating accurately. In any event what ever works is fine. I don't match up with people based on how they aim. I match up with them based on how much or how little they miss.
Which explains why the pros are constantly checking such shots from behind the line to the pocket rather than trying to shoot it from the other end of the table without going to check..............
Or maybe you don't notice this habit when you watch the pros play.
For caroms they mostly use the cue to line it up from the contact point unless it's rather obvious or there is a big ball which is almost impossible to miss.
A pro uses all tools in the toolbox. They use the one that works best for them on the shot they are facing. I do the same thing but I can't use my tools as well as they can, APA 3 that I am.
not to sure about the first statement thats why you will see a great many pros walk to side of table to get another perspective but i do completely agree with the second point and really i dont know if i really use ghost ball or not i do understand it and i guess i kind of use it as a reference but i really just use tangent lines to aim i see line from pocket to object ball and line from cue ball to object ball and shoot accordingly. I know that sounds very obscure but i dont really know how to put into words what i do at the table. I just know i rely on seeing line to pocket with adjustments for throw where it may be cut induced throw spin induced throw or both. I also know that Johns dissing of league players is somewhat unfounded i have many players in my tap league i would gladly bankroll against john anytime and feel like i had a fish on the line. I wont name names here but one of them was playing us open this weekend and has taken down a number of respected pros.
Last edited:
How many times did Efren and Earl do this when they ran 9 and 10 racks consecutively ? How about we make Efren stand in the kitchen and we freeze too balls around the foot spot and bet him $10 each time if he's wrong in his call if the two line up to the pocket or not ? Who'd go broke first ?
If they did go near the balls to line up the ob, there's the contact point aiming system they use then. Which they do often when lining up a combination.
When did I diss league players?
I think you are completely misreading something I wrote. Feel free to quote the part where you think I dissed league players.
Last edited:
I am just reporting on what I see Joey. If you would like to make bets then we can bet on whether or not pros in general check frozen balls or not. Let's make it worthwhile and bet $2000. We each find as many instances of pros facing frozen ball shots as we can in one week. Then we present our links to the forum and if you found more where the pros did NOT walk down and check the shot than I find where they did, you win.
Tell you what though, in the interest of PEACE I am not really wanting to argue with you about which way to play is better. It doesn't matter. If you match up with someone then you do whatever you want to do to get the balls in the hole and whatever you do either works for you or it doesn't. If you tell someone that x-method is better than y-method and they try it and find out that that's not true for them then no big deal they go back to y-method.
But if you try really hard to PREVENT someone from trying x-method when MAYBE x-method might have been just what they needed then I find that to be really sad and spiteful.
My thought on this is really simple. The table is sitting there, the balls are sitting there and the person shooting should try everything and anything that they come across if that is what makes them happy while they are at the table. It's really easy to keep score of the progress. Are you making the shots? Are you making the "tough" shots? Are you winning more?
So you go on and do your thing. If it makes you happy to be a knocker then knock. No biggie. With 7 billion people on Earth there are bound to be disagreements on everything.
Neil,
He doesn't know who Jason Kirkwood is. However I'd like to see him apply his HAMB method to this type of shot on video. I don't know if YouTube has enough server space to handle a video long enough to capture him making this shot three times in a row.
For the record I also make shots like this regularly now and fully agree that this IS a major benefit to aiming the way you and I do it.
1. Do you really think Efren can't see from the head string on spotted ball with a frozen cueball if they line up to the pocket or now ? If he couldn't then ghost ball wouldn't work b/c it is an imagination of the two balls colliding .
I can tell I have never seen Efren walk to a spotted ball or TWO ballS for that matter to make a shot .
2. They can learn and pay for anything they want but to say ghost ball doesn't work is not quite accurate. It might not be for everyone, but it sure is a valid aiming "system". How many more systems are we going to see come out ? Another man's system was so good, there have been a few more come out after that man's system was so heavily argued over.
First you said "pros" now you want to narrow it down to one pro? What Efren does or not is not of consequence because Efren does not win everything. If he did then we could say that his way to play is the only way to play. But as we see constantly people with all kinds of styles manage to play excellent pool and win events. Even all the Filipinos don't play like Efren and they still manage to win.
GB works great on paper. And it works great on the table if you are good at estimating the imaginary ball and estimating how much to account for throw. If you are someone like me, and I know that there are many people like me, who can't imagine the GB very consistently and can't guess the amount of adjustment very consistently then MAYBE some other method is better. Well in my case I KNOW that what I use is better.
The shot Neil diagrammed above would be IMPOSSIBLE for me using GB. I could measure it with GB a hundred times and I'd be lucky to make it three times in a hundred. But with the method I use I can guarantee you that my make percentage would be WAY higher. In fact I would say that I would easily have a 40% chance to make it even if I had never before tried the shot in my life.
THAT is what the type of method I use does for me. It gives me a recipe I can depend on. GB is a recipe as well but instead of precise measurements it depends on guestimating the GB position and holding that imaginary ball in focus long enough to get the cue into position. That doesn't work for me shot after shot. What I do requires no guessing and works shot after shot after shot and exactly the same for shots I have never even practiced before.
I don't care if 500 more systems come out. The more the better. Why do you care? You're a cue maker and there are what 700 or more of you in the USA? Isn't that too many cues? Why do we need so many cues, aren't the cue brands we had 20 years ago good enough? Who needs more than a good McDermott? Why is YOUR cue better than anyone else's?
The point is that people are THINKING about it and trying to figure out why and how these other methods work and how to refine them into something explainable and teachable and as easy to understand as GB but with more accuracy. Why do you think that this is a bad thing?
EXACTLY what I do, and the simplest way I've seen anybody put it so far. I think some folks call it "opposite contact points system". I like to think of putting a small chalk mark on a rail and trying to rub it off with a cue ball from various parts of the table. No real concrete aim, you just have to account for the size/curvature of the cue ball to make it glance exactly off the spot. That happens through experience and muscle memory. When you can reliably do that, hitting the spot on the object ball with your cue ball isn't a big deal. And yes, I have no problem seeing the invisible spot on the object ball, as it's just the furthest spot from the pocket on that sphere. As long as you have 3-D vision, you should be able to "see" that hypothetical spot. It's where I focus my eyes on from pulling the trigger through contact. I can then see if I'm delivering the cueball where I mean to and adjust, if not. If I hit the intended spot but it doesn't go, then I'm looking at throw and need to adjust (which for me is usually with english, not "aim" adjustment).
Your right about the ghost ball.........
I don't even need to see any test. I know your right.
it's kind of like if the moon hit the earth and someone was trying to eye ball what crater would hit New York from 100 miles away. Ain't going to happen.
I totally agree..............
I don't even need to see any test. I know your right.
it's kind of like if the moon hit the earth and someone was trying to eye ball what crater would hit New York from 100 miles away. Ain't going to happen.
I totally agree..............