marissayi said:
You know, no woman has ever said that to me!
Yet again... another aiming question
- Thread starter papercut
- Start date
You know, no woman has ever said that to me!
Sweet Marissa
www.Bella-Muse.com
Jude Rosenstock said:
I noticed you were gender specific...
Sweet Marissa
www.Bella-Muse.com
Eric. said:You'll go blind if you do that too much
Eric
Maybe if he practises with someone else's noodle?
marissayi said:
Yeah, well I try to avoid situations where I'd disappoint the other gender.
drivermaker
Banned
marissayi said:
I'd rather go blind and have hair grow in my palm from practice and tournament play based on self fulfillment. Every man for themselves. (which reminds me...my hand needs a haircut and I need to get my eyes checked)
drivermaker
Banned
JLW said:
Here we go around and around again as if you've discoverd something new that doesn't exist that isn't an aiming system. What you and Pete LaFond are doing is....A KNOWN AND IDENTIFIABLE AIMING SYSTEM. Is this sinking into your head? IT'S A F*#KING AIMING SYSTEM.
What Pete described about the arrow going through the ball is in fact called,
"THE ARROW AIMING SYSTEM". It's straight out of Todd Leveck's book, "Aiming on the Cutting Edge". There are OTHER aiming systems that use just a path..."The LINE AIMING SYSTEM"; "The CHAIN BALL AIMING SYSTEM"; "The TUNNEL AIMING SYSTEM"; and "THE RAILROAD AIMING SYSTEM". You just don't even know that the aiming systems exist and already have a name to them.
Now here's the real kicker...Guy posted an aiming system on here with a telephone # to call. I guarantee than NONE of the argumentative nitwits on here about the non-existance of aiming systems have a clue what kind of gift has just been dropped in your lap. I'm not just talking about what he posted, but I'm talking about the telephone # and the invitation to call.
You'll just go on believing what you want to believe, arguing about stupid shit that you have no clue about, and shooting like fucking hacks...when all you have to do is pick up the phone and listen. But why would you possibly want to do that when you already know it all?
Anyone have IMSHARMA's e-mail addy?
I'd like to send him $100 for his geometrically-correct aiming system.
I wonder if it's anatomically correct too.
I'd like to send him $100 for his geometrically-correct aiming system.
I wonder if it's anatomically correct too.
drivermaker said:
Although I'm usually drawn to systems put forward entirely in capitals I have little need for a system that can only pot balls at 15, 30 & 45°. I'm just as likely to pot balls at 10, 20 & 60 (which also add up to 90° incidentally) and as the tolerance on a clean pot from the pink spot is about ±0.8° I'd feel a bit limited to tell the truth.
Contact points on the object ball are only useful for billiards. Pool is not billiards. Billiards players don't use them to take on a pot either.
It might be an idea for you to investigate how all the best potters sight their shots and learn from them. You might want to consider that they don't play pool.
Boro Nut
drivermaker said:
I described how I aim and what I feel makes sense to me, at least intuitive to me. When my son developed an interest in pool I taught him what I felt was the best way. I had to evaluate what I do in order to teach him.
The only thing I stated is that I would never hinder my 9 year old son's ability with fragmented components such as spots on a ball or ghost balls as this would limit his vision for complete shot making.
So if the argument is am I talking about an aiming system, then yes. I never spent anytime reading about "Systems" until this forum, usually never paid attention to it. People who hit a pool ball for the first time have an aiming system, probably many at first. If you are saying am I talking about a predefined and labeled aiming system? I never knew it, and I am more than sure many many others do the same as I do. I guess I mis-understood this forum post and maybe rambled to much..
pete lafond said:
1. You have absolutely nothing to be apologetic about. This is a forum designed for discussions about pool. That's what we're doing. Some of us more maturely than others.
2. People can call closing their eyes an "aiming system" if they want. They miss the point. What I am talking about is letting your aim come as naturally as possible; not introducing anything unnecessary into your shotmaking. Isn't that what we should strive to do? If you can shoot without using one of these "systems," why use one? Because someone on this forum says you have to? You don't have to imagine railroad tracks, or ghost balls, or sections of a ball, or light reflections in order to make shots. It is actually possible to just look at the shot and determine how to shoot it. There is such a thing as FEEL. And some pretty F&^$ING good players actually play this way. I have no quarrel with anyone who uses any aiming system. If it works for you- GREAT! I'm happy for you. But I'm sick of the condescension from those who believe their way is the only way. For me personally, I feel that the vast majority of these systems clutter my mind with unnecessary thoughts and actually get in the way of my getting in stroke, focusing, and making shots. As I've said before, I shoot better this way than with any other "method" I've used. And I've tried many. So I'm going to continue using it and recommending it to others.
Let's see where this adult, mature discussion goes from here.
JLW said:
First thing I'd like to add to this discussion is the fact that our eyes are all different.
I bet there's some way to find out how dominant one eye really is over the other. Is it 100%? or 95? or 75? or 52.3? Who knows... (In my case, while my right eye is dominant, it's by no means 100%, so guess what I do now?)
Since our eyes are different, and we see things differently, even if a specific aiming system is mentioned, there's always the problem of whether or not outr eyes are actually seeing the same thing as someone else's.
That being said, when one considers the almost infinite permutations of factors: cloth on the table, new, used, pilled, chalky, etc... balls: Centennials or others, new, worn, pitted, chalky, waxy, polished... etc... ; Cue being used: shaft, tip, etc. etc... STROKE: Is is really straight???
Perhaps you get my drift...
The key to finding the ultimate aiming system probably has to take these factors all into account? Guess what? THERE AIN'T SUCH A THANG !!
I think the key is to find where the center of the pocket for any particular shot is, and use that as a reference point. Set up your shot... How certain are you the object ball will pot EXACTLY there, or do you want to cheat the pocket a bit?? Decisions, decisions...
Heck.. shoot the shot, miss, or make it, shoot it again, and again, pot it many times, note what you are doing, and Grill it into your brain... never forget what you did to pot that doggone ball...
Then play with that shot, shoot it wil follow, or draw... what changed? Make the pot happen... Shoot it with various kinds of english... pot it... again and again...
Is it easier now? Does a chicken have lips?
Good luck....
Cheers!
Flex
JLW said:
i'd just like to point out that just about every top pro player has some "system" or multiple "sytems" they use.
just for example, on johnny's website, he explains somewhat how he use's parrellel lines to aim on his shots.
of course when one is in dead stroke, you don't need all this, but there are times when you do.
if most top players fall back onto little things like this, then i wouldn't say that you "shouldn't" use a system. some people are unconscious players and some are more concious. this includes amatuer and pro players.
then if you watch players like bustamante, with the way he lines his cue up on the shot, and moves it on the final stroke, he is obviously using the same way of aiming for each shot.
VAP
i would like to urge people to call the number listed in this thread.
you'll be glad you did......
somehow though, i doubt that more than 1 of you will..........
VAP
you'll be glad you did......
somehow though, i doubt that more than 1 of you will..........
VAP
drivermaker
Banned
pete lafond said:
Pete...your post about the path and the arrow was a VERY GOOD post and the comparison to putting a golf ball was right on the mark regarding how you envision the ball getting to the cup and carrying over to pool.
It's also very indicative of individuals that come on here saying that "they don't aim" or "don't use aiming systems". In order to make balls into a pocket, you have to "see", "sight", "align", "envision", or "aim" (whatever word you wish to call it) to make the job of CB striking the OB easier guaranteeing yourself some sort of consistency in making those balls.
But the fact is...there's NOTHING that's being done that hasn't already been figured out or invented by all the great minds and poolplayers before us and is categorized as an aiming system. It might be contact points, paths, lines, ghost balls, sectional alignment, geometric aiming, overlaps, cue shaft, ferrule aiming, or whatever, but it's out there. Most just don't know they exist, as in your case with the path/arrow method that you taught your kid.
(and then as a result of this lack of awareness, we have arguments with the high priest moron of them all JLW and guys like him) (I also hope you don't teach your kid to "close his eyes" as part of an aiming system because it isn't one)
Last edited:
It's also very indicative of individuals that come on here saying that "they don't aim" or "don't use aiming systems". In order to make balls into a pocket, you have to "see", "sight", "align", "envision", or "aim" (whatever word you wish to call it) to make the job of CB striking the OB easier guaranteeing yourself some sort of consistency in making those balls.
If they are not aiming and are not aware of the tangent line, how da hell do they know where the cueball is going?
They don't look at the contact points?
I bet those pros who point at the contact point of the ob with their tip before shooting combos are doing it wrong.
If they know what angle to approach the ob. I'd bet they are peaking at the shaft to make sure it's on the correct angle before shooting.
If they are not aiming and are not aware of the tangent line, how da hell do they know where the cueball is going?
They don't look at the contact points?
I bet those pros who point at the contact point of the ob with their tip before shooting combos are doing it wrong.
If they know what angle to approach the ob. I'd bet they are peaking at the shaft to make sure it's on the correct angle before shooting.
drivermaker
Banned
JoeyInCali said:
Sure makes sense to me...but you'll have to ask JLW about "not aiming". He's the expert on all that. I guess EVERYTHING just comes naturally for him, a guy that plays 5-10 hours per week, according to him. Hell, I do 5 hours just about EVERY DAY, and up to 10 hrs. per DAY in the winter, as well as doing it over a longer period of time than he's even been ALIVE. (wonder how I know so little about this game??
)drivermaker
Banned
RichardCranium said:We are not talking about Golf anymore.......
I actually put more time into pool now than golf, especially with a table at home. Most mornings I'm at the table between 6:30 - 7:00 when most others are still snoozing or on their way to work. Then again in the evening. Golf is just too time consuming, as you well know. I only put between 2-2 1/2 hours in a day...either 9 quick holes or a lot of ball beating on the range with short game afterwards. You can do a LOT that way.
drivermaker said:
so when do you actually find time to do something WORTHWHILE during the day........you know like WORK????
VAP