18 Mar 2005 12:37:21
JoeyA
NEW AIMING System

This system is introduced on AZbilliards web site and the Main Forum
section, by Joe Tucker in a thread titled " A Taste of My Method of Aim.
JoeyA




18 Mar 2005 14:13:08
Richard Sharp
Re: NEW AIMING System

Joey, this is a version of the parallelogram system we have discussed in the
past and that is described in Byrne's book. The unique thing about this
presentation is the numbering of contact points. I prefer to match the same
points by visualizing the parallel lines when using this method. The man is
otherwise very sound in his application of the main principles involved.

PVL richie


"JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net > wrote in message
news:d1f7jo$an9$1@news.datasync.com...
> This system is introduced on AZbilliards web site and the Main Forum
> section, by Joe Tucker in a thread titled " A Taste of My Method of Aim.
> JoeyA
>
>




18 Mar 2005 20:30:25
Bob Jewett
Re: NEW AIMING System

Richard Sharp <shar9380@bellsouth.net > wrote:

> ... the parallelogram system we have discussed in the past and
> that is described in Byrne's book. ...

And also Mosconi's book(s?) before that, and probably earlier sources.

"No thing under the sun is new" (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

But, as you mention, Joe adds a lot of support for the system, to
make it clearer to the student, including a special cue ball and
object ball from Aramith.

I think the classic billiard support for ECC 1:9 is the diagram
in Kentfield's book from 1839 that shows squirt, a pivot point,
and backhand english. But there are still people who do not
believe that squirt exists. Maybe they should refer to John
8:32, although the original intent there may not have been in
this context. Or maybe it was.

Bob



18 Mar 2005 15:40:29
Mad Max
Re: NEW AIMING System

Oh geeze, here comes the s.f. ferry school. For christ sake teach 3-c
and leave pool to me bozo. Put a ferrule on your cue and shut the F
up. There aint no fookin aimin systems, none of the pro use them, the
aiming systems are for beginners and bozos. You really dont know
she=yit, that is da truth.



18 Mar 2005 15:59:43
Re: NEW AIMING System


JoeyA wrote:
> This system is introduced on AZbilliards web site and the Main Forum
> section, by Joe Tucker in a thread titled " A Taste of My Method of
Aim.
> JoeyA

Joey,
As I said in the post on Az, this is a very good training tool. Joe
also has a video at his site and he does an even better job explaining
it. I have the complete package and I can tell you that I was
impressed with the way Joe presented it. The "Aiming Balls" are made
by Aramith and they are top quality. Joe did a lot of work on this
project and I would recommend it to other instructors as a training
tool.

Blackjack



18 Mar 2005 19:32:13
Roger Orsulak
Re: NEW AIMING System

You crack me up!

I for one, certainly believe that squirt exists. However, even with you by
my side in Titusville, I, for the life of me, could not (cannot) understand
the aim and pivot method.

Roger - worse than being the slow one is being the thick one.

'course, considering the fast, slow ain't so bad....

"Bob Jewett" <jewett@sfbilliards.com > wrote in message
news:1111177825.619801@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> Richard Sharp <shar9380@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> ... the parallelogram system we have discussed in the past and
>> that is described in Byrne's book. ...
>
> And also Mosconi's book(s?) before that, and probably earlier sources.
>
> "No thing under the sun is new" (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
>
> But, as you mention, Joe adds a lot of support for the system, to
> make it clearer to the student, including a special cue ball and
> object ball from Aramith.
>
> I think the classic billiard support for ECC 1:9 is the diagram
> in Kentfield's book from 1839 that shows squirt, a pivot point,
> and backhand english. But there are still people who do not
> believe that squirt exists. Maybe they should refer to John
> 8:32, although the original intent there may not have been in
> this context. Or maybe it was.
>
> Bob
>




19 Mar 2005 19:30:47
John Black
Re: NEW AIMING System

In article <d1f7jo$an9$1@news.datasync.com >,
joey@noofficespecialties.net says...
> This system is introduced on AZbilliards web site and the Main Forum
> section, by Joe Tucker in a thread titled " A Taste of My Method of Aim.
> JoeyA

Looks interesting. This is pretty much the same aiming system CJ Wiley
described in one of his tapes and that I was trying to describe back in
December under the subject "Aiming". It is the contact point to contact
point (or "equal opposite" as Jimmy Reid calls it) system but
discretized to only use a finite number of points. Actually, there is
not enough of the video shown for me to be sure but I think he is saying
that there are only a finite number of points, i.e. the shot is either
what he calls 6 to 6 or its 7 to 7 but it won't be 6.22 to 6.22 or
something in between 6 and 7. Joe Tucker's version uses many more
points than mine and always references the points to the rails, whereas
the one I described always referenced the points to the center to center
line. Just different ways of finding and talking about the points but
they are the same points.

By the way, Pat showed that my method would make only half of all 2 foot
shots. His math seemed sound (even though my success with the system
far exceeded that) so I stopped using the discrete version of the
system, opting for the exact version of it in which you just try to
eyeball the exact two points and line them up. I can't say that I shoot
definitively better or worse since making the switch but its possible
I'm a little less consistent -- some nights I've very on, others off.

I think Joe's method is worth a try because it is similar to what was
working for me before but has many more aiming points. Actually, I
think even if you are opting for the exact version of the system, Joe's
method of referencing the numbers to the rails can give an easier to
visualize way of seeing the points especially when the OB and CB are
separated by a large distance -- when they are separated by short to
medium distances, you can just look at both points at the same time when
lining up the shot.

John Black


19 Mar 2005 22:49:03
Patrick Johnson
Re: NEW AIMING System

John Black wrote:

> ... there are only a finite number of points, i.e. the shot is either
> what he calls 6 to 6 or its 7 to 7 but it won't be 6.22 to 6.22 or
> something in between 6 and 7.

Whether or not Tucker teaches it that way, the system only works if
fractional points are used. 10 contact points per quarter of the object
ball simply aren't enough to make all shots.

> ... Joe Tucker's version ... references the points to the rails, whereas
> the one I described always referenced the points to the center to center
> line. Just different ways of finding and talking about the points but
> they are the same points.

Actually, they aren't the same points. The 10 shots you get orienting
the contact points with the rails are different from the 10 shots you
get orienting the contact points with the line of centers (unless the
two balls happen to be parallel with a rail).

Like you, I would orient the contact points with the CB/OB line of
centers rather than with the rails, because (1) you only have to
visualize a single line through the centers of the balls
(approximately), not parallel lines through their separate centers, and
(2) the cue ball contact points are always the same relative to your
line of sight, not shifting with each shot.

> By the way, Pat showed that my method would make only half of all 2 foot
> shots.

I forget the details of your system, but another system we discuss here
from time to time is the "ball fractions" system. It divides the balls
into quarters and aligns them to make about the same number of contact
points as Tucker's system (but not exactly the same points). I doubt
that your system has less, and unfortunately it's worse than you recall:
with 10 contact points you can only make 1/2 of the shots WITHIN 2
feet. As I said above, AT 2 feet you can only make 1/4 of the shots.

What's interesting to me about these "calibrating" systems is how
similar they all are and how little they actually differ from simply
aiming "by feel". They narrow the field containing the contact point to
a relatively small area, but then it's always up to the shooter to find
the actual, exact point by estimation or "feel". I (and most shooters,
I think) don't need help narrowing the estimation down, so I can spend
all my concentration on the final estimation itself without bothering
with the artificial "scale" of a system.

Pat Johnson
Chicago


21 Mar 2005 09:02:42
JoeyA
Re: NEW AIMING System

Richard, like most aiming systems this one will help many players especially
new players who need help visualizing the shot. Some top players believe it
could even help the pros. As Bob Jewett points out, many aiming systems
including this one are similar to other systems that have been previously
published.

What I like about aiming systems is that they use different words to get to
the same end result. Novices and experts have their own perspective in mind
about how to visualize making a shot and these "different" aiming systems
help different people achieve their goals. Most top players don't even
consciously aim at any point. They play so much that they "just shoot the
balls in the hole" without much conscious effort. Most of their conscious
effort seems to be in imagining the shot, especially if it is difficult; and
paying more attention to the cue ball & where its going to go. The
pocketing of the object ball is almost a given.

Bob Jewett moved the embers about hoping to enlighten the ignorant and
misinformed of RSB to John 8: 32 in discussing squirt's existance and while
I don't consider myself a bible scholar, I like to refer to Philippians 2:12
when it comes to aiming systems.

Warm regards, :-)
JoeyA


"Richard Sharp" <shar9380@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:IBG_d.55211$%Y4.6047@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
: Joey, this is a version of the parallelogram system we have discussed in
the
: past and that is described in Byrne's book. The unique thing about this
: presentation is the numbering of contact points. I prefer to match the
same
: points by visualizing the parallel lines when using this method. The man
is
: otherwise very sound in his application of the main principles involved.
:
: PVL richie
:
:
: "JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net > wrote in message
: news:d1f7jo$an9$1@news.datasync.com...
: > This system is introduced on AZbilliards web site and the Main Forum
: > section, by Joe Tucker in a thread titled " A Taste of My Method of Aim.
: > JoeyA
: >
: >
:
:




21 Mar 2005 15:41:04
Patrick Johnson
Re: NEW AIMING System

JoeyA wrote:

> Bob Jewett moved the embers about hoping to enlighten the ignorant and
> misinformed of RSB to John 8: 32 in discussing squirt's existance and while
> I don't consider myself a bible scholar, I like to refer to Philippians 2:12
> when it comes to aiming systems.

OK, I was curious enough to look these passages up:

John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my
presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your
salvation with fear and trembling

I know that pool players communicate in mysterious ways so I'm willing
to be liberal in my interpretation of these, but the Philippians quote
goes right over my poor infidel head.

(Not sure I want to know...)
Pat Johnson
Chicago



21 Mar 2005 10:11:14
JoeyA
Re: NEW AIMING System

Use your "poor infidel head" and focus on the words "work out your
salvation" and that should do it for you.

I've used similar words many times in this forum so I thought most would
have seen the humor in my response to Bob. You apparently are looking for
other things.

I believe that while there may be other or different ways, even better ways
to explain aiming or any other aspect of pool, it is up to each person to
work out their own salvation (goals/problems) and that they don't have to
use someone else's perspective to accomplish the same thing. In fact, some
people may be able to pocket balls better by using aiming systems that are
not mathematically correct. Some people can benefit from different
perspectives.

No one should be admonished into following another person's teachings for
anything, pool and religion included.
Warm regards,
JoeyA


"Patrick Johnson" <patrick.johnsonREMOVE@THIScomcast.net > wrote in message
news:kWB%d.8741$ZB6.1679@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
: JoeyA wrote:
:
: > Bob Jewett moved the embers about hoping to enlighten the ignorant and
: > misinformed of RSB to John 8: 32 in discussing squirt's existance and
while
: > I don't consider myself a bible scholar, I like to refer to Philippians
2:12
: > when it comes to aiming systems.
:
: OK, I was curious enough to look these passages up:
:
: John 8:32
: Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
:
: Philippians 2:12
: Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my
: presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your
: salvation with fear and trembling
:
: I know that pool players communicate in mysterious ways so I'm willing
: to be liberal in my interpretation of these, but the Philippians quote
: goes right over my poor infidel head.
:
: (Not sure I want to know...)
: Pat Johnson
: Chicago
:




21 Mar 2005 16:33:03
Patrick Johnson
Re: NEW AIMING System

JoeyA wrote:

> I've used similar words many times in this forum so I thought most would
> have seen the humor in my response to Bob. You apparently are looking for
> other things.

No, I was looking for the humor. You apparently are looking for other
things in my response.

Pat Johnson
Chicago



21 Mar 2005 16:35:25
Bob Jewett
Re: NEW AIMING System

JoeyA <joey@noofficespecialties.net > wrote:

> ... I like to refer to Philippians 2:12 when it comes to
> aiming systems.

I believe that's what Lou has been telling us for quite some
time. Could it be that Lou is actually.... Nah, couldn't be.
But he does look sort of Middle-Eastern, at least in comparison
to James Caviezel.

Bob



21 Mar 2005 10:42:55
Mike Page
Re: NEW AIMING System

In article <kWB%d.8741$ZB6.1679@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com >,
Patrick Johnson <patrick.johnsonREMOVE@THIScomcast.net > wrote:

> JoeyA wrote:
>
> > Bob Jewett moved the embers about hoping to enlighten the ignorant and
> > misinformed of RSB to John 8: 32 in discussing squirt's existance and while
> > I don't consider myself a bible scholar, I like to refer to Philippians
> > 2:12
> > when it comes to aiming systems.
>
> OK, I was curious enough to look these passages up:
>
> John 8:32
> Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
>
> Philippians 2:12
> Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed­not only in my
> presence, but now much more in my absence­continue to work out your
> salvation with fear and trembling
>
> I know that pool players communicate in mysterious ways so I'm willing
> to be liberal in my interpretation of these, but the Philippians quote
> goes right over my poor infidel head.
>
> (Not sure I want to know...)

I've always interpreted Joey to mean every person must find his own path
to enlightenment or something like that--a message that's appealing to
me. But when I read the discussion surrounding the Philippians verse,
it doesn't sound like that at all.

All I know, Pat, is Bob and Joey have Bible verses. Ron's got his
Shakespere line, which is close enough... Git on the ball! you need a
Bible verse, man....


21 Mar 2005 10:47:04
Ron Shepard
Re: NEW AIMING System

In article <d1mo5b$f14$1@news.datasync.com >,
"JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net > wrote:

> Most top players don't even
> consciously aim at any point.

I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the above claim is
correct. I hear players say this all the time, yet I constantly see
evidence to the contrary.

Watch the good players in your room, or watch the pros on TV, and
you will often see them walk around behind the shot to stand
directly behind the object ball from its target. You will see this
when the target is a pocket, a place on a cushion for a bank shot,
or when the target is a spot on another object ball in a combination
shot. In fact, in off-angle combination shots, you might see the
player stand behind the contact points on BOTH object balls.

Now you might argue that those players aren't consciously using a
system. I don't really know what is going on in their heads when
they do this. But it is pretty clear that they are, in a rather
obvious way, accurately picking out the spot on the ball that they
need to hit in order for the shot to succeed. Conscious or
subconscious, we can't know unless they tell us, but it is pretty
clear what kind of information they are getting in order to line up
the shot.

You can see the same thing regarding ghost ball aiming. Many people
say that good players never use ghost ball aiming, that after a
million shots, they are beyond the need to do something so simple.
Yet, I watched Earl Strickland line up several shots exactly this
way a couple of weeks ago over a period of several days in a
tournament. He would stand behind the contact point, lay the tip of
his cue on the cloth a ball radius away from that contact point,
then pivot the stick to be over the center of the cue ball. That
gives directly the line that the cue ball must take in order to
arrive at the ghost ball position and to hit the desired contact
point on the object ball.

$.02 -Ron Shepard


21 Mar 2005 11:21:55
JoeyA
Re: NEW AIMING System

Maybe I should have said, many top players (when they are in the zone),
don't consciously aim at a specific point on the object ball and that they
simply shoot the cue ball into the object ball with little or no conscious
reference to a particular spot on the object ball.

Sometimes they will use an aiming system or pick out a spot on the object
ball or the path that the cue ball should travel etc, when they are feeling
the pressure of the shot and their honed instincts have temporarily
abandoned them or perhaps for some other reason.

I am sure that everyone from time to time uses an aiming system of some type
especially when they aren't 100% sure of the shot.

Perhaps when they are in the zone their aiming system occurs so fast, they
cannot fathom that they are using one consciously or unconsciously. They
probably pick a spot on the object ball and just shoot the cue ball toward
the object ball knowing that the ball will be pocketed, not spending any
conscious mental energy on any other aiming system other than the
abbreviated one above.

When a player gets in trouble or lacks the confidence to pocket the ball,
make the shape etc he will revert back to conscious effort/aiming systems
but it doesn't appear that they are doing that when in the zone.

Warm regards,

JoeyA




"Ron Shepard" <ron-shepard@NOSPAM.comcast.net > wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-17963E.10470421032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
: In article <d1mo5b$f14$1@news.datasync.com >,
: "JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net > wrote:
:
: > Most top players don't even
: > consciously aim at any point.
----------------------
: I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the above claim is
: correct. I hear players say this all the time, yet I constantly see
: evidence to the contrary.
:
: Watch the good players in your room, or watch the pros on TV, and
: you will often see them walk around behind the shot to stand
: directly behind the object ball from its target. You will see this
: when the target is a pocket, a place on a cushion for a bank shot,
: or when the target is a spot on another object ball in a combination
: shot. In fact, in off-angle combination shots, you might see the
: player stand behind the contact points on BOTH object balls.
:
: Now you might argue that those players aren't consciously using a
: system. I don't really know what is going on in their heads when
: they do this. But it is pretty clear that they are, in a rather
: obvious way, accurately picking out the spot on the ball that they
: need to hit in order for the shot to succeed. Conscious or
: subconscious, we can't know unless they tell us, but it is pretty
: clear what kind of information they are getting in order to line up
: the shot.
:
: You can see the same thing regarding ghost ball aiming. Many people
: say that good players never use ghost ball aiming, that after a
: million shots, they are beyond the need to do something so simple.
: Yet, I watched Earl Strickland line up several shots exactly this
: way a couple of weeks ago over a period of several days in a
: tournament. He would stand behind the contact point, lay the tip of
: his cue on the cloth a ball radius away from that contact point,
: then pivot the stick to be over the center of the cue ball. That
: gives directly the line that the cue ball must take in order to
: arrive at the ghost ball position and to hit the desired contact
: point on the object ball.
:
: $.02 -Ron Shepard




21 Mar 2005 23:45:08
lfigueroa
Re: NEW AIMING System

er, I don't know about James Caviezel...but there was a time in my life when
I actually looked quite bit like Al Pacino (think Serpico).

Nowadays, I'm happy not to look so much like him :-)

Lou Figueroa
Attica! Attica!

"Bob Jewett" <jewett@sfbilliards.com > wrote in message
news:1111422924.931107@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> JoeyA <joey@noofficespecialties.net> wrote:
>
> > ... I like to refer to Philippians 2:12 when it comes to
> > aiming systems.
>
> I believe that's what Lou has been telling us for quite some
> time. Could it be that Lou is actually.... Nah, couldn't be.
> But he does look sort of Middle-Eastern, at least in comparison
> to James Caviezel.
>
> Bob
>




21 Mar 2005 21:03:56
Mark0
Re: NEW AIMING System

This verse sums up my philosophy nicely: 1Thessalonians 5:17

Mark0 <--no atheists in a fox hole or on a pool table

1Thes5:17 : 17pray continually;
===
"Mike Page" <mike.page@ndsu.nodak.edu > wrote in message
news:mike.page-1DE8DF.10425521032005@news.supernews.com...
> In article <kWB%d.8741$ZB6.1679@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> Patrick Johnson <patrick.johnsonREMOVE@THIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > JoeyA wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Jewett moved the embers about hoping to enlighten the ignorant and
> > > misinformed of RSB to John 8: 32 in discussing squirt's existance and
while
> > > I don't consider myself a bible scholar, I like to refer to
Philippians
> > > 2:12
> > > when it comes to aiming systems.
> >
> > OK, I was curious enough to look these passages up:
> >
> > John 8:32
> > Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
> >
> > Philippians 2:12
> > Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed­not only in my
> > presence, but now much more in my absence­continue to work out your
> > salvation with fear and trembling
> >
> > I know that pool players communicate in mysterious ways so I'm willing
> > to be liberal in my interpretation of these, but the Philippians quote
> > goes right over my poor infidel head.
> >
> > (Not sure I want to know...)
>
> I've always interpreted Joey to mean every person must find his own path
> to enlightenment or something like that--a message that's appealing to
> me. But when I read the discussion surrounding the Philippians verse,
> it doesn't sound like that at all.
>
> All I know, Pat, is Bob and Joey have Bible verses. Ron's got his
> Shakespere line, which is close enough... Git on the ball! you need a
> Bible verse, man....




21 Mar 2005 23:39:46
Ron Shepard
Re: NEW AIMING System

In article
<80J%d.160499$Th1.61732@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
"lfigueroa" <lfigueroa@att.net > wrote:

> er, I don't know about James Caviezel...but there was a time in my life when
> I actually looked quite bit like Al Pacino (think Serpico).
>
> Nowadays, I'm happy not to look so much like him :-)
>
> Lou Figueroa
> Attica! Attica!

Peter Riegert, definitely Peter Riegert (say 10 or 15 years ago,
like in The Mask).

$.02 -Ron Shepard <--sometimes looks like Jeff Bridges


22 Mar 2005 22:21:19
Mark B. VanLiere
Re: NEW AIMING System

"JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net > wrote in
news:d1n0ad$i7d$1@news.datasync.com:

> Maybe I should have said, many top players (when they are in the
> zone), don't consciously aim at a specific point on the object ball
> and that they simply shoot the cue ball into the object ball with
> little or no conscious reference to a particular spot on the object
> ball.
>
> Sometimes they will use an aiming system or pick out a spot on the
> object ball or the path that the cue ball should travel etc, when they
> are feeling the pressure of the shot and their honed instincts have
> temporarily abandoned them or perhaps for some other reason.
>
> I am sure that everyone from time to time uses an aiming system of
> some type especially when they aren't 100% sure of the shot.
>
> Perhaps when they are in the zone their aiming system occurs so fast,
> they cannot fathom that they are using one consciously or
> unconsciously. They probably pick a spot on the object ball and just
> shoot the cue ball toward the object ball knowing that the ball will
> be pocketed, not spending any conscious mental energy on any other
> aiming system other than the abbreviated one above.
>
> When a player gets in trouble or lacks the confidence to pocket the
> ball, make the shape etc he will revert back to conscious
> effort/aiming systems but it doesn't appear that they are doing that
> when in the zone.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> JoeyA

Very well said. Whenever I see a player counting diamonds (or
whatever), my first reaction is "This guy is in trouble, because he
hasn't a clue as to the correct shot."

As has been said many times before, all systems are only approximate.
There are simply too many variables involved for any system to be more
than a way to "get close".

One should be delighted when his opponent has to fall back on an "aiming
system."

Mark

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


22 Mar 2005 23:08:05
Sorackem
Re: NEW AIMING System

"JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net > wrote in
news:d1n0ad$i7d$1@news.datasync.com:

> Perhaps when they are in the zone their aiming system occurs so fast,
> they cannot fathom that they are using one consciously or
> unconsciously.

To my mind, this is always true, whether in the 'zone' or not.

Someone else mentioned this in an earlier aiming thread; If you don't use
some aiming system, you would just end up walking up to the table and
stroking the ball arbitrarily.

Whether we know it or not, or admit to it or not, we ALL use an aiming
'system' or 'method' or 'concept' EVERY time.

It would be exceedingly hard for anyone to convince me that, barring any
other more conscious process, that those people/pro's/in-the-zone players
are not using a 'ghost ball' concept.

-Brian


23 Mar 2005 00:24:57
Donald Tees
Re: NEW AIMING System

Sorackem wrote:
> "JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net> wrote in
> news:d1n0ad$i7d$1@news.datasync.com:
>
>
>>Perhaps when they are in the zone their aiming system occurs so fast,
>>they cannot fathom that they are using one consciously or
>>unconsciously.
>
>
> To my mind, this is always true, whether in the 'zone' or not.
>
> Someone else mentioned this in an earlier aiming thread; If you don't use
> some aiming system, you would just end up walking up to the table and
> stroking the ball arbitrarily.
>
> Whether we know it or not, or admit to it or not, we ALL use an aiming
> 'system' or 'method' or 'concept' EVERY time.
>
> It would be exceedingly hard for anyone to convince me that, barring any
> other more conscious process, that those people/pro's/in-the-zone players
> are not using a 'ghost ball' concept.
>
> -Brian

Really? I think the "ghost ball" method far less intuitive than most.

I'd say the most intuitive(natural?) is that someone "see"s the lines
the balls will follow, and adjusts the cue until it lines up on those
imaginary lines. The lines the mind's eye sees are the result of
thousands of shots where you actually observe the balls coliding and
following ceratin paths.

The incorrect lines, as you gain experience, do not "look right". The
correct lines do. The reason they do/do not is that they fit/do not fit
the thousands of samples you have observed. Simple pattern recognition
... not an iota of cause/effect reasoning involved. In effect, when the
shot goes in, the brain says "click, store that one", and gradually
build's an image generator that works accross a broad range of shots.

Most of what people in here seem to call "method" involves a causality
process being applied. Do this, and that happens. While I accept that
such is a reasonable learning tool, I am not sure it is the way the
brain actually works when it does it's thing.

Donald


23 Mar 2005 00:30:34
Sorackem
Re: NEW AIMING System

Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca > wrote in news:L470e.7309$JK1.479117
@news20.bellglobal.com:

> Really? I think the "ghost ball" method far less intuitive than most.
>
> I'd say the most intuitive(natural?) is that someone "see"s the lines
> the balls will follow, and adjusts the cue until it lines up on those
> imaginary lines.

I understand what you mean Donald. To my mind, what you describe and the
'ghost ball' are the same animal.

One doesn't just place a ghost ball anywhere on the circumference of the
OB, but places it where those perceived lines dictate.

I also like that you include both balls in your explanation. Being aware of
the tangent line for purposes of playing shape also has the very
discernable benefit of helping me focus on the contact point.

-Brian


23 Mar 2005 15:21:07
Patrick Johnson
Re: NEW AIMING System

Donald Tees wrote:

> ... the "ghost ball" method far less intuitive than most.

I think it's among the most intuitive, but not THE most. I believe we
could say the simplest way - or the least methodical way, or the way
employing the least technique - is the most intuitive, and the ghost
ball method is pretty low tech compared to most others.

> I'd say the most intuitive(natural?) is that someone "see"s the lines
> the balls will follow, and adjusts the cue until it lines up on those
> imaginary lines.
> ... Simple pattern recognition not an iota of cause/effect reasoning

Well... It can be even simpler: adjusting until the CB/OB overlap
simply looks right without reference to any lines. Visualizing the
lines is, to my way of thinking, another "alignment aid" (albeit a
pretty rudimentary one) like visualizing a ghost ball. You can use
simple ones like that or more complicated ones like ball fractions. But
in the end, accepting or rejecting a particular CB/OB alignment is the
same: it either looks right, with or without the visualization aids, or
it doesn't.

In fact, using alignment aids adds another layer of intuitive judgement.
You first have to accurately visualize your alignment aid (have I
found the correct contact point? is the ghost ball in the proper
position? have I divided the CB and OB into exact fractions?) before
you can use it as a guide for aligning the actual CB/OB, and to do that
you have to use the same "intuitive" pattern recognition ability. So
you may narrow your choices down for the final estimation, but you
haven't eliminated that final estimation and, in fact, you've added
another "layer" of estimation on top of it.

This is why I say that no system, method or technique eliminates the
element of intuition or feel, and in fact probably adds to it. But I
don't believe that this means every player should just "just shoot the
ball into the pocket". In fact, I believe every player can (and
probably does) benefit from some system, method or technique, but also
believe it's best to keep it as simple as possible.

Pat Johnson
Chicago



23 Mar 2005 10:41:08
Donald Tees
Re: NEW AIMING System

Patrick Johnson wrote:
> Donald Tees wrote:
>
>> ... the "ghost ball" method far less intuitive than most.
>
>
> I think it's among the most intuitive, but not THE most. I believe we
> could say the simplest way - or the least methodical way, or the way
> employing the least technique - is the most intuitive, and the ghost
> ball method is pretty low tech compared to most others.
>
>> I'd say the most intuitive(natural?) is that someone "see"s the lines
>> the balls will follow, and adjusts the cue until it lines up on those
>> imaginary lines.
>> ... Simple pattern recognition not an iota of cause/effect reasoning
>
>
> Well... It can be even simpler: adjusting until the CB/OB overlap
> simply looks right without reference to any lines. Visualizing the
> lines is, to my way of thinking, another "alignment aid" (albeit a
> pretty rudimentary one) like visualizing a ghost ball. You can use
> simple ones like that or more complicated ones like ball fractions. But
> in the end, accepting or rejecting a particular CB/OB alignment is the
> same: it either looks right, with or without the visualization aids, or
> it doesn't.
>

The problem I have with most of the ball fraction/edge alignment methods
is that they encourage aiming while down over the ball. I am convinced
that getting your line while standing upright and determining your
stance is crucial. On a snooker table, because of the greater size, I
think it even more important ... depth perception is poorer as distance
increases, and being able to see the angle from higher up is more of an
advantage.

Donald


23 Mar 2005 16:07:03
Patrick Johnson
Re: NEW AIMING System

Donald Tees wrote:

> The problem I have with most of the ball fraction/edge alignment methods
> is that they encourage aiming while down over the ball.

If we distinguish between "aiming" and "alignment" (aiming = choosing a
desired alignment; alignment = accomplishing it), then it seems to me
that these alignment methods don't encourage "aiming" while down - they
can (although I'm not sure they necessarily should) be accomplished
separately.

Pat Johnson
Chicago



23 Mar 2005 16:31:48
Patrick Johnson
Re: NEW AIMING System

By the way, I meant to also respond to this: "I am convinced that
getting your line while standing upright and determining your stance is
crucial." I agree, but I think that's more related to accomplishing the
alignment than to choosing it, and I don't think you can fully
accomplish your alignment while standing upright - from that height and
angle, you just can't be as precise or accurate as you need to be. So I
think the idea that one shouldn't do any "aiming adjustment" while down
is overstating the case.

pj
chgo

Patrick Johnson wrote:

> Donald Tees wrote:
>
>> The problem I have with most of the ball fraction/edge alignment
>> methods is that they encourage aiming while down over the ball.
>
>
> If we distinguish between "aiming" and "alignment" (aiming = choosing a
> desired alignment; alignment = accomplishing it), then it seems to me
> that these alignment methods don't encourage "aiming" while down - they
> can (although I'm not sure they necessarily should) be accomplished
> separately.
>
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
>



23 Mar 2005 20:36:48
lfigueroa
Re: NEW AIMING System

I don't use an aiming system. My "method" is to use a PSR that puts my
head, arm, grip, and stick in the right place to pocket the ball. That's
the hardest part, just finding the right combination that allows your body
to consistently fall into a position that makes hitting the balls where you
want a natural action. It's sort of like finding a technique that allows
you to consistently, if not automatically, flip a coin into a glass, or a
card into a hat.

What I'm doing once I've gotten into shooting position is just trying to
balance my stroke speed with whatever english I've decided the shot needs.
But there really is no aiming at a point on the ball, or imagining a ghost
ball, or parallel lines, or ball fractions. You just look at the shot,
which includes the pocket, the object ball, the cue ball, and your tip and
shaft.

And then, it's what you've learned after hitting thousands of balls that
kicks in. If you've done the reps, you know you're going to hit it right.
You know that hitting it at a particular velocity, with a certain amount of
spin, is going to pocket the ball and produce the cue ball position you
desire.

IMO, you feel the shot in your arm and grip far more than you see (aim) it.

Lou Figueroa

"Sorackem" <flint_stoned@nodcomcast.net > wrote in message
news:Xns9621D705FF4F5flintstonednod@216.196.97.136...
> "JoeyA" <joey@noofficespecialties.net> wrote in
> news:d1n0ad$i7d$1@news.datasync.com:
>
> > Perhaps when they are in the zone their aiming system occurs so fast,
> > they cannot fathom that they are using one consciously or
> > unconsciously.
>
> To my mind, this is always true, whether in the 'zone' or not.
>
> Someone else mentioned this in an earlier aiming thread; If you don't use
> some aiming system, you would just end up walking up to the table and
> stroking the ball arbitrarily.
>
> Whether we know it or not, or admit to it or not, we ALL use an aiming
> 'system' or 'method' or 'concept' EVERY time.
>
> It would be exceedingly hard for anyone to convince me that, barring any
> other more conscious process, that those people/pro's/in-the-zone players
> are not using a 'ghost ball' concept.
>
> -Brian








23 Mar 2005 21:08:32
John Black
Re: NEW AIMING System

In article <Ark0e.443125$w62.102094@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
lfigueroa@att.net says...
> I don't use an aiming system. My "method" is to use a PSR that puts my
> head, arm, grip, and stick in the right place to pocket the ball. That's
> the hardest part, just finding the right combination that allows your body
> to consistently fall into a position that makes hitting the balls where you
> want a natural action.

Lou,

Would you describe your pre-shot routine? Thanks.

John Black


23 Mar 2005 21:44:08
tanaka hiroshamika
Re: NEW AIMING System

I CAN SPLAIN HIS PRESHOT RUTINE. HE GET OUT OF HIS SEAT AND SCRATCHES HIS
NUTS COMPLAINS BOUT THE PRICE OF COFFEE AT THE POOL ROOM BITCHES ABOUT THE
FUCKIN CLOTH COMPLAINS THAT HE AINT IN STROKE MAKES ALL SORTS OF EXCUSES AND
TRY HARD TO FIGURE OUT A GOOD SCUSE WHY HE GUNNA MISS THE FUCKIN BALL. THAT
WHY HE PLAYS THAT FAGGIT ONE POCKET GAME CAUSE HE CANT MAKE A FUCKIN BALL.
OH I FOGOT TO SAY HE STICKS HIS HEAD IN IS ASS SO HE CAN SUCK THAT FAGGIT
DINOS DICK HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com


23 Mar 2005 22:28:20
lfigueroa
Re: NEW AIMING System

John, my PSR is to stand slightly to the left of the cue ball and, after
chalking, establishing contact between my cue and bridge hand, and settling
down into shooting position.

Am I leaving out a lot of nuance? Yes, of course. But that's because what
I do probably has next to nothing to do with what anyone else should do.
We're all built differently, we use different equipment, we all learned how
to play differently, and we all have our own physical quirks when it comes
to playing pool. You've got to find what works for you.

But as you're looking around for your PSR, here are two thoughts that might
help:

Small things that don't seem important are.

Sequence and timing matter.

Lou Figueroa

"John Black" <jblack@texas.net > wrote in message
news:MPG.1cab96e0f0791f2598979c@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <Ark0e.443125$w62.102094@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> lfigueroa@att.net says...
> > I don't use an aiming system. My "method" is to use a PSR that puts my
> > head, arm, grip, and stick in the right place to pocket the ball.
That's
> > the hardest part, just finding the right combination that allows your
body
> > to consistently fall into a position that makes hitting the balls where
you
> > want a natural action.
>
> Lou,
>
> Would you describe your pre-shot routine? Thanks.
>
> John Black




23 Mar 2005 23:23:03
tanaka hiroshamika
Re: NEW AIMING System

FUCK YOU AN YOU PRESHIT ROUTINE PUSSY MAN YA CANT PLAY A FUCKIN LICK AT ALL.
COME PLAY A REAL MAN SOME POOL AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AND PLAY A REAL MANS
GAME LIKE STRAIGHTS AND SEE HOW SHITTY YOU ARE.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com


24 Mar 2005 15:27:38
John Black
Re: NEW AIMING System

In article <84m0e.443621$w62.181486@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
lfigueroa@att.net says...
> John, my PSR is to stand slightly to the left of the cue ball and, after
> chalking, establishing contact between my cue and bridge hand, and settling
> down into shooting position.
>
> Am I leaving out a lot of nuance? Yes, of course. But that's because what
> I do probably has next to nothing to do with what anyone else should do.
> We're all built differently, we use different equipment, we all learned how
> to play differently, and we all have our own physical quirks when it comes
> to playing pool. You've got to find what works for you.
>
> But as you're looking around for your PSR, here are two thoughts that might
> help:
>
> Small things that don't seem important are.
>
> Sequence and timing matter.

By timing, do you mean that each step should take the same amount of
time as it did on all your other shots. Including that you should take
the same number of warm up strokes, etc. Some have recommended a 1, 2,
shoot rhythm. Is this what you mean or will you take longer and maybe
more warmup strokes on more difficult shots?

John Black


24 Mar 2005 22:24:52
lfigueroa
Re: NEW AIMING System

Yes, all that.

But I also mean that within your PSR there has to be enough time to allow
your body to do what it needs to do to get into proper position. You can
easily fall into a PSR that doesn't give you enough time to do something
critical. Perhaps: not giving yourself enough time to stretch your bridge
arm straight; or maybe, not enough time to lower your head so you have a
good view of the cue ball; or, maybe not enough time to move your stroking
arm into a good alignment.

IMO, when it comes to a pool setup and stroke, some parts of your bod need
sufficient time to do everything they need to do. It may just be a
second here, or a fraction of a second longer there, but the timeline for
your PSR can make a difference.

It's a funny thing, but I think that's one of the reasons we sometime fall
into dead stroke and can't figure out what it is that we're doing
differently. What I'm coming to appreciate is that an important part of it
all is just *the flow* of how we're shooting that particular day.

Lou Figueroa
wax on, wax off

"John Black" <jblack@texas.net > wrote in message
news:MPG.1cac987e9fdb29dc98979e@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <84m0e.443621$w62.181486@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> lfigueroa@att.net says...
> > John, my PSR is to stand slightly to the left of the cue ball and, after
> > chalking, establishing contact between my cue and bridge hand, and
settling
> > down into shooting position.
> >
> > Am I leaving out a lot of nuance? Yes, of course. But that's because
what
> > I do probably has next to nothing to do with what anyone else should do.
> > We're all built differently, we use different equipment, we all learned
how
> > to play differently, and we all have our own physical quirks when it
comes
> > to playing pool. You've got to find what works for you.
> >
> > But as you're looking around for your PSR, here are two thoughts that
might
> > help:
> >
> > Small things that don't seem important are.
> >
> > Sequence and timing matter.
>
> By timing, do you mean that each step should take the same amount of
> time as it did on all your other shots. Including that you should take
> the same number of warm up strokes, etc. Some have recommended a 1, 2,
> shoot rhythm. Is this what you mean or will you take longer and maybe
> more warmup strokes on more difficult shots?
>
> John Black