Why was the "HAMB aiming" thread taken down?

JarnoV

JarnoV

JarnoV
Silver Member
I was trying to find the "HAMB aiming" thread and to my surprise it was taken down. I can't even find the posts I made in the thread.

Anyone know why mods took the thread down? I didn't think it was too aggressive or uncivil. There are more controversial threads discussed right now in the Main Forum.

Did the discussion get out of hand after I posted there last time?
 
JarnoV said:
Did the discussion get out of hand after I posted there last time?
Click to expand...


I don't know. I gave up on it early in the thread when the sh*t was still a couple of feet away from the fan.
I imagine the poo-slinging must have gotten too bad to the point of the mods deleting the thread.

Maniac
 
I can't believe that there is no more controversial topic in pool than simple aiming. nothing.

Yet, snooker players, for all their effort to build the perfect player...perfect stance, perfect alignment, perfect stroking technique...never think twice about it.

It seems that pool players are looking for a cerebral edge in aiming and snooker players are looking for a mechanical edge in technique. One sees the forest and the other is studying bark.
 
You might find one here:
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/

They sell hats:
redhat01_large.jpg


EDIT: Found the shirts (cue ZZ Top's "I'm Bad, I'm Nationwide"):
red01_large.jpg


blue01_large.jpg
 
Last edited:
mosconiac said:
I can't believe that there is no more controversial topic in pool than simple aiming. nothing.

Yet, snooker players, for all their effort to build the perfect player...perfect stance, perfect alignment, perfect stroking technique...never think twice about it.

It seems that pool players are looking for a cerebral edge in aiming and snooker players are looking for a mechanical edge in technique. One sees the forest and the other is studying bark.
Click to expand...

Great, great post! I don't think there's any better analogy than this. All those that "take the red pill" in these aiming system threads should head on over to a snooker forum -- *any* snooker forum -- and see how many "aiming system" threads you find there. You won't find many, and even if you do, they're about how to make sure one's fundamentals are placing him/her in the proper position to "aim" (actually, to see the proper sight picture).

It's amazing how much bark-studying goes on in these aiming system threads. But hey, I guess there's lots of entertainment to be found in those threads. :)

-Sean
 
Neil said:
Without the bark, the tree dies.:thumbup:
Click to expand...

And therein lies the issue -- we don't need to constantly walk up to the tree to inspect "if it has bark." You have a whole forest to take in. You don't have time for that. :o

-Sean
 
sfleinen said:
Great, great post! I don't think there's any better analogy than this. All those that "take the red pill" in these aiming system threads should head on over to a snooker forum -- *any* snooker forum -- and see how many "aiming system" threads you find there. You won't find many, and even if you do, they're about how to make sure one's fundamentals are placing him/her in the proper position to "aim" (actually, to see the proper sight picture).

It's amazing how much bark-studying goes on in these aiming system threads. But hey, I guess there's lots of entertainment to be found in those threads. :)

-Sean
Click to expand...

Who cares? They have their way and we have ours. They don't all agree on what the best way to aim is. Some say B.O.B. (Back of the Ball) , some say Ghost Ball, some say using Fractions of the Ball (Steve Davis for example).

The point of all this is that one can take it to the table and figure which one works best for himself. One guy may not need any particular prescription while the other might need to have his feet placed just so on every shot.

Any discussion is worthwhile as long as people don't tell other people that they are charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, fools (bark studiers), suckers, etc...

If EVERYONE would print out the information and GO to the table and then come back with their observations then all of these methods can be dissected and broken down into their simplest forms. Obviously they all have merit otherwise people wouldn't ever report success with them.

So based on that the next step is to find out how and why they work and what's the best way to simplify it. Calling someone an asshole takes away from that and steers the discussion away from discovery and into conflict.

An indian was not BORN knowing how to survive in the woods. The indian learned through knowledge passed on by their elders. Each new discovery or technique invented led to a better understanding of how to survive in a harsh environment. There is no way that you could take a fully grown adult and plop him down in the forest and expect him to live if he has no understanding at all of what he is up against. Before he can live a million minutes he needs to have some basic knowledge.

Do you think I can give someone a pool cue and a pile of leather and a year and have them come out with a world class cue case? (rhetorical question)

Maybe.

Some people would have some innate sense of how things best go together and with not much trial and error they would produce a credible case. Others wouldn't get it no matter how much time they were given.

Anyway, I personally don't much care what the snooker people discuss. They play a different game with different requirements. There is overlap of course but on the whole the techniques and strategies are different. They don't discuss aiming in the way we do but they certainly don't all agree on what method is the best one to use.

Using them to somehow say that we are stupid (my read on the use of what Snooker people discuss) is the same sort of thing that takes these discussions downhill until they crash and burn.

Snooker rocks, snooker players rock. Their game is freaking hard to master. So is ours.
 
Hi John:

I'm not going to go into a point-by-point tête-à-tête with you. What I will say is this: it's unfair to group "bark studiers" in with your complaints about "charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and suckers." It's unfair of you to try to do so, and I think you know that was never my intent. While I will say that over analysis of details is wasted effort (i.e. my agreement with mosconiac's "bark studiers" comment), it is certainly not in the same class as those exploitive and demeaning adjectives you have issues with. So I'm throwing that back at you to try again. It's not mine, but apparently belongs to you.

I personally HAVE tried CTE and Stan's Pro/One (yes, I have his DVD). I spent a solid month on it, trying to make it second nature. I get it, but it doesn't work for me. Personally, the same "fire control solution" it arrives at, I already arrive at with less steps. But I won't go bashing the information as others here do. I've been firm in my belief that "if it works for you, then it's *for* you." Discussion is a good thing, and my post was actually in that spirit -- a friendly "over a beer" jib-jab with Neil, that is, until you came in with the "are you going to take that?!?" serious stuff from the rail.

Frankly, I don't know where you get off with this "calling people *ssholes" business in responding to my post, either. You certainly aren't talking about me, unless, that is, you're referring to an old thread where I unfortunately allowed you to get under my skin and I lost my cool. If you're going to quote my post and reply to it, please keep it on topic with the quoted post, and not spiral off airing your displeasure with other posters as if they apply to me, ok? I promise not to do the same with you.

Respectfully,
-Sean

JB Cases said:
Who cares? They have their way and we have ours. They don't all agree on what the best way to aim is. Some say B.O.B. (Back of the Ball) , some say Ghost Ball, some say using Fractions of the Ball (Steve Davis for example).

The point of all this is that one can take it to the table and figure which one works best for himself. One guy may not need any particular prescription while the other might need to have his feet placed just so on every shot.

Any discussion is worthwhile as long as people don't tell other people that they are charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, fools (bark studiers), suckers, etc...

If EVERYONE would print out the information and GO to the table and then come back with their observations then all of these methods can be dissected and broken down into their simplest forms. Obviously they all have merit otherwise people wouldn't ever report success with them.

So based on that the next step is to find out how and why they work and what's the best way to simplify it. Calling someone an asshole takes away from that and steers the discussion away from discovery and into conflict.

An indian was not BORN knowing how to survive in the woods. The indian learned through knowledge passed on by their elders. Each new discovery or technique invented led to a better understanding of how to survive in a harsh environment. There is no way that you could take a fully grown adult and plop him down in the forest and expect him to live if he has no understanding at all of what he is up against. Before he can live a million minutes he needs to have some basic knowledge.

Do you think I can give someone a pool cue and a pile of leather and a year and have them come out with a world class cue case? (rhetorical question)

Maybe.

Some people would have some innate sense of how things best go together and with not much trial and error they would produce a credible case. Others wouldn't get it no matter how much time they were given.

Anyway, I personally don't much care what the snooker people discuss. They play a different game with different requirements. There is overlap of course but on the whole the techniques and strategies are different. They don't discuss aiming in the way we do but they certainly don't all agree on what method is the best one to use.

Using them to somehow say that we are stupid (my read on the use of what Snooker people discuss) is the same sort of thing that takes these discussions downhill until they crash and burn.

Snooker rocks, snooker players rock. Their game is freaking hard to master. So is ours.
Click to expand...
 
sfleinen said:
Hi John:

I'm not going to go into a point-by-point tête-à-tête with you. What I will say is this: it's unfair to group "bark studiers" in with your complaints about "charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and suckers." It's unfair of you to try to do so, and I think you know that was never my intent. While I will say that over analysis of details is wasted effort (i.e. my agreement with mosconiac's "bark studiers" comment), it is certainly not in the same class as those exploitive and demeaning adjectives you have issues with. So I'm throwing that back at you to try again. It's not mine, but apparently belongs to you.

I personally HAVE tried CTE and Stan's Pro/One (yes, I have his DVD). I spent a solid month on it, trying to make it second nature. I get it, but it doesn't work for me. Personally, the same "fire control solution" it arrives at, I already arrive at with less steps. But I won't go bashing the information as others here do. I've been firm in my belief that "if it works for you, then it's *for* you." Discussion is a good thing, and my post was actually in that spirit -- a friendly "over a beer" jib-jab with Neil, that is, until you came in with the "are you going to take that?!?" serious stuff from the rail.

Frankly, I don't know where you get off with this "calling people *ssholes" business in responding to my post, either. You certainly aren't talking about me, unless, that is, you're referring to an old thread where I unfortunately allowed you to get under my skin and I lost my cool. If you're going to quote my post and reply to it, please keep it on topic with the quoted post, and not spiral off airing your displeasure with other posters as if they apply to me, ok? I promise not to do the same with you.

Respectfully,
-Sean
Click to expand...

I am not calling anyone an asshole. I said the practice of calling people assholes, charlatans, suckers, retards, etc... detracts from the point which is to figure out whatever technique is being discussed.

One can take in the whole forest in terms of it's beauty and power but if one does not study and understand which bark can be safely eaten and which will kill you in minutes then one will not survive long IN the forest.

The thing with comparing the snooker forums to the pool forums in terms of saying that people here are too obsessed with details is also counterproductive in my opinion. If any one is too obsessed with details then it is the same group that calls instructors snake-oil salesmen. There are a lot of folks here who are just interested in any and all techniques that are presented and like to play with them. Those people don't want to be told that they are suckers who are wasting their time. They don't want to be called assholes and end up telling the "other side" that they are assholes either..

They just want to try things and discuss things in peace. If this happened then these threads would be fairly short and only populated with people who are interested in the subject from a learning standpoint.

Other people who feel that they have no need for whatever is being presented should leave it. Do these people stop at every display in the store where someone is presenting some product and argue against it for the "benefit" of the audience? No, they don't. They ignore it. So why do it here?

If they really want to disprove something then why don't they simply take it to the table and disprove it? Doing that would at least be on topic and provide a platform for others to duplicate the experiments.

Either way the threads don't then dissolve into "camps" at war with each other. That's the only stupid asshole part of all this.
 
mosconiac said:
It seems that pool players are looking for a cerebral edge in aiming and snooker players are looking for a mechanical edge in technique. One sees the forest and the other is studying bark.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed all the discussion on mechanics. There is even a DVD on it. I can't go any farther than that but at least one "controversial" method of aiming is covered in detail regarding the mechanics.

The premise of the DVD is that by following a few simple mechanical rules then the act of aiming becomes second nature.

In other words it's the equivalent of learning why moss grows on one side of the tree and how that helps you navigate the forest.
 
mosconiac said:
I can't believe that there is no more controversial topic in pool than simple aiming. nothing.

Yet, snooker players, for all their effort to build the perfect player...perfect stance, perfect alignment, perfect stroking technique...never think twice about it.

It seems that pool players are looking for a cerebral edge in aiming and snooker players are looking for a mechanical edge in technique. One sees the forest and the other is studying bark.
Click to expand...

Those that can, play. Those that can't, teach.

The level of pedantry on this forum is something else. No snooker player gives aiming a second's thought. Deflection, squirt, throw and swerve are dealt this by feel, experience and skill, not diagrams, discussion and infinitesimally tedious dissection of how two small spheres interact upon contact. Anyone would think this is rocket science. Does Jimmy White come across as a brain surgeon? No, he comes across as someone who has practised until his natural ability has been fulfilled.

Paralysis by analysis. A curse in these parts.
 
The last I knew, the purpose of a forum is discussion.


TheThaiger said:
Those that can, play. Those that can't, teach.

The level of pedantry on this forum is something else. No snooker player gives aiming a second's thought. Deflection, squirt, throw and swerve are dealt this by feel, experience and skill, not diagrams, discussion and infinitesimally tedious dissection of how two small spheres interact upon contact. Anyone would think this is rocket science. Does Jimmy White come across as a brain surgeon? No, he comes across as someone who has practised until his natural ability has been fulfilled.

Paralysis by analysis. A curse in these parts.
Click to expand...
 
TheThaiger said:
Those that can, play. Those that can't, teach.

The level of pedantry on this forum is something else. No snooker player gives aiming a second's thought. Deflection, squirt, throw and swerve are dealt this by feel, experience and skill, not diagrams, discussion and infinitesimally tedious dissection of how two small spheres interact upon contact. Anyone would think this is rocket science. Does Jimmy White come across as a brain surgeon? No, he comes across as someone who has practised until his natural ability has been fulfilled.

Paralysis by analysis. A curse in these parts.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Snooker players donthink about aiming and they discuss it. In snooker books aiming methods are taught. You can find Steve Davis videos on YouTube teaching aiming and it is not ghost ball aiming.

If your only comment is to tell people they are stupid for discussing this then maybe you shouldn't be participating in this forum.
 
JB Cases said:
Wrong. Snooker players donthink about aiming and they discuss it. In snooker books aiming methods are taught. You can find Steve Davis videos on YouTube teaching aiming and it is not ghost ball aiming.

If your only comment is to tell people they are stupid for discussing this then maybe you shouldn't be participating in this forum.
Click to expand...

Firstly, snooker players do not discuss aiming systems - I'll bet not 1% of them have heard of CTE, and I bet less than 10% have even heard of CB deflection, let alone know what it is. You must remember that, relatively speaking, very few players read the internet, where these ideas foment. Steve Davis and the like allude to aiming in any way that'll make them money, and besides, these are aimed at rank beginners only. It is my understanding that the aiming systems we're talking about are for all levels of player, including advanced.

Secondly, where did I tell people they were stupid? I think I advised people to play more and read less. Damn good advice, don't you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top