Ultimate Aiming System
pool...@webtv.net
System" video. I just found out about this ng the other day from a good
friend. I would love to hea commments about the video. Both good and
bad. I know the length left a little to be desired, but helping people
play better was the man concern.
e-mail@ pool...@webtv.net
<shoot pool not people>
Ken Bour
I watched the video on loan from a friend. My post was not too flattering I
have to admit. Not only did the "system" not work for me, but it did not
work for another good player who tried it after watching the tape. It isn't
logical that the width of the shaft could account for the variety of angles
involved in normal play. In addition, you did not explain the effects of
squirt, swerve, and throw -- all of which would affect the shots
demonstrated on your video. In my judgment, after watching you make ball
after ball, I would guess that you were making subtle adjustments in the
alignment that you may not even realize yourself. For a system to work, it
should be able to be used, as advertised, by any C or better player
reliably. Not so.
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
<pool...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3493-37A...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
sam
can I get it and what does it cost. E-mail if you like. Sincerely, Sam
pool...@webtv.net wrote in message
<12391-37A...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Hi Ken. Sorry the system didn't work for you. What size shaft do you
have? A fellow wrote me to tell me he was using a 12mm shaft and the
system didn't work for him. He then went to a 13mm shaft and the system
worked. I have used it with a broom handle before. Whatever the reason,
I wish it would have worked for you.
The feeling of not having to second guess yourself is great. I thank you
for your response.
Dave
<shoot pool not people>
Tom Simpson
wrote:
::Hi everyone, I am Dave Mullen, the creator of the "Ultimate Aiming
::System" video. I just found out about this ng the other day from a good
::friend. I would love to hea commments about the video. Both good and
::bad. I know the length left a little to be desired, but helping people
::play better was the man concern.
:: e-mail@ pool...@webtv.net
::
::<shoot pool not people>
::
Hi Dave. Welcome aboard. There was a thread about your
system just a few weeks ago. We didn't really delve much
into the whys, hows, and issues of the system, since those
of us who knew about it, didn't want to just give it away.
I think it's an excellent system. I use it as a second
opinion on some shots, and as the first opinion on heavy
spin shots that I'm having trouble seeing with confidence.
You can review that discussion thread by going to
www.deja.com, which is an archive for the newsgroups. Search
for mentions of "Ultimate" in this ng over the last month,
and it should turn up.
Is it still selling?
tom simpson
pool...@webtv.net
overwhelming. I appreciate your response. I have recieved thank you's
from all over the world. That made it worthwhile.
pool...@webtv.net
have? A fellow wrote me to tell me he was using a 12mm shaft and the
system didn't work for him. He then went to a 13mm shaft and the system
worked. I have used it with a broom handle before. Whatever the reason,
I wish it would have worked for you.
The feeling of not having to second guess yourself is great. I thank you
for your response.
LMoss18701
>From: pool...@webtv.net
> I would love to hear commments about the video
dave,
since i have spent the last 7 years or so studying systems, kicking and aiming,
you might say my game is mostly systems.
your tape was a gift to me and i have watched it closely. i understand fully
what you are trying to teach, but "BEWARE" the "DISBELIEVERS" will tear you to
shreads in this ng. the persons who shoot ghost ball or contact point are very
positive that there is "NO OTHER WAY TO AIM CONSISTENTLY". NONE OF WHICH ARE
PRO PLAYERS, BTW.
do not get discouraged, i am glad to see you posting and their are a lot of
lurkers out there that do sort through the "mud slinging" and try new ideas
despite the members that want to discourage it.
GLAD TO HAVE YOU ABOARD!
LINDA MOSS
Ken Bour
My shaft is 12.75mm and my friend's is a standard 13mm.
Perhaps it would help if you would explain WHY this system SHOULD work. I
would agree that, for certain shallow angles (15 deg. or so), it makes sense
that an adjustment of approximately 13mm would work, but how can it be
accurate as the shot angle approaches 45 deg. and wider? Similarly, when
you apply inside or outside english and some speed, squirt seriously affects
the aiming point.
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
<pool...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12391-37A...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Ken Bour
Maybe you would be kind enough to explain why and how this system should
work? I tried it faithfully, after watching the video several times (it's
only 10 minutes), and all balls came up too short. To be fair, I showed it
a friend who is a good player and he couldn't make a ball either. The
adjustment is nowhere near large enough for any angles above 15 degrees or
so. The system doesn't account for throw, squirt, or swerve; in fact, Dave
states on his tape that the beauty of the system is that it works for all
englishes! I want to believe because it would make this game so bloody
simple, but honestly, how can it be so?
I'm not trying to trash anyone, but I do think that criticism is fair if
someone is going to put out a system or theory for money. I have offered my
reasons and would certainly accept an argument or set of experiments that
would show where I'm wrong.
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
LMoss18701 <lmoss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990808035610...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
pool...@webtv.net
Thanx for the response. I know this system works from the response I
have gotten from so many people. There were negitive responses.
About 1 in 300. I figured that to be pretty good.
Pleasing everyone is impossible. Not everyone looks out the same set of
eyes.
Patrick Johnson
1. An endorsement from Linda isn't worth much. She never met a system
she didn't like, or a critique she understood.
2. It isn't very convincing to say you "know the system works from the
positive responses." I can find 300 Lindas that will believe any
system works for them. Don't you know it works with or without the
responses?
3. While your response to critical analysis is friendly, it isn't
informative. Why don't you respond directly to specific questions
about your system? Are there no satisfactory answers? (Endorsements
from Linda don't count.)
Here are three simple questions:
1. For center ball hits (no spin), how can the edge of the stick
always point at the correct object ball contact point as the cut angle
changes?
2. For spin shots (at the same cut angle), how can the edge of the
stick always point at the correct object ball contact point as the
stick moves to produce different amounts of spin?
3. If you can't or won't answer these questions, why should anyone
believe you know what you're talking about?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
JoeyA
I haven't seen your video but would like to review it soon.
Stay with us. If you work with this newsgroup and you have a product that
will help people play better pool, they WILL get the word out.
Most of us are open to new ideas and subject to discuss old ones until we
start flaming one another. Actually it isn't that bad most of the time :-)
It is said that the teacher will appear when the student is ready.
Who are the professional pool players who use your aiming system? Thanks,
Good luck.
Joey Aguzin
New Orleans.
pool...@webtv.net wrote in message
<3493-37A...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
JoeyA
set of eyes.
There was a thread about which ball do you last look at before "pulling the
trigger". I have always looked at the object ball last except when curving
or when using masse.
Now because of this newsgroup I have reluctantly and thankfully started
looking at the cue ball when performing some other unusual shots. I am
pocketing more balls and obtaining better shape on these "special shots".
I think that we are all willing to learn. That is what I believe is the
fundamental reason for this newsgroups existence. If you want to teach us,
you will just have to help us with our idiosyncrasies and reluctance to
accept "revolutionary new information on pool".
We have dissected almost every issue and discussed almost every subject one
can imagine and we would love to learn how to play better pool. If you have
the tenacity, to bear this open, often candid and close scrutiny, you may be
able to open up many eyes and sell some more videos in the process.
We need another "fresh" subject.
And don't forget to let us know which pros use your aiming system.
Thanks,
Joey Aguzin
New Orleans
pool...@webtv.net wrote in message
<14832-37...@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Smorgass Bored
It is said that the teacher will appear when the student is ready.
(*<~ There you go again. Quoting old episodes of Kung Fu. Now,see
if you can snatch the cube of chalk from my palm Weedhopper........
Doug W.
~>*)))>< Big fish eat Little fish ><(((*<~
Phat Mack
beginners.
I think most aiming is intuitive, and your system would be worthwhile as a
basis for getting started. Using it would give people a starting point
from which to refine their aim after hours (years?) of play. It could also
give them self confidence, which I am convinced is 90% of playing pool or
anything else.
I think beginners who are always asking "why?" would have trouble using
it, because there is no logical reason for the left side of the ferrule to
be lined up with the hit spot on left-hand cuts, just to cite an example.
And not only a shaft's size, but its squirt and english producing
properties should change the aim point.
On the other hand, it is inherently self-correcting for cue ball curve and
possibly even throw.. What's more, it does away with some of the fears
some novices may have about putting english on the ball. This may make it
an excellent teaching device.
I started out as a billiard player and have spent years trying to figure
out how to get the balls in the holes. I have also spent my entire life
asking "why?" at every opportunity, so you would think that I didn't like
your tape. I worked on the system for a couple of weeks, and decided I
wasn't benefiting from it as far as pool goes, but I still use it
occasionally when I am in unfamiliar waters -- like playing snooker, or on
bar boxes. And if I find some people who are just starting out, I
wouldn't hesitate to lend them the tape.
Wyo.Stick
do try these systems out,,,,, I find that All of them, for
the most part, have SOME credibility. BUT!!! (THE BIG
BUT!!!)... They ALL, also have too be adjusted too for
variables beyond a "systems" control. Such as cloth/rail
conditions/cue stick/shaft...and tip.... Not too mention
the individual ability of the shooter. OR! even the ability
of your opponent.
I have too be honest...the Houlian system puzzles me the
most...just cant see that 3, or is it 4, angles.. can
pocket every object ball situation that arises during a
match/rack/game. (Hopefully this wont lead too another
200plus thread on Hals system -smile). But a perfect 45(or
whatever) degree cut...is only good for pocketing the
object ball. THEN...you have too fudge it with
left/right/follow/draw///...AND all the "inbetween
variables"..... in order too get your Q ball where ya
want it...for the next angle on the next shot...inorder too
set ya up for the 3rd shot away...inorder too set you up
for the 4th shot...in order too ...well you get the idea.
Linda, I still maintain...that at least 70% is
FEEL/GUT....or maybe..,,,,,, Just maybe, Wyostks
SYSTEM.......Shoot the ball a zillion
times...everyway/up/down/sideways.........Untill....you can
move up too the table, get down over your shot....and...
JUST KNOW!!!!!!!
Paul <...let the flames begin..shoot systems and think real
hard about them quickly...till someone puts $20 on the
lamp...then.... Do that GUT FEEL THING>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
pool...@webtv.net
Have you seen the tape? If you have not, then your questions will be
answered upon watching the tape. If you have seen the tape, then I will
try to answer your questions.
sam
question. ALL systems have limitations. Some have more than others. I
don't know a thing about this system yet, but I am betting that it is a 0 to
30 degree effective system. I have found that some of the systems will work
to 60 degrees, but beyond that, you are seriously adjusting on most systems.
Just a thought. Sincerely, Sam
Ken Bour wrote in message <7olkti$k45$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>Incidentally, should an "Ultimate Aiming System" account for all angles in
>pool or are there limitations?
Patrick Johnson
work...]
> Dave wrote:
> If you have seen the tape, then I will try to answer your
> questions.
Mmm hmm...
If I buy it, you'll talk about it. That's pretty convincing, Dave. Is
your system as good as your salesmanship?
LMoss18701
>Ultimate Aiming System
>Linda:
>
>Maybe you would be kind enough to explain why and how this system should
>work?
ken,
i think since DAVE is responding to this thread, it should be him that should
explain to you how his system works. as you know , although familiar with
several systems, i shoot hal houles system only. yes, i own daves tape.(it was
a gift). i understand the concept he is using, but i do not shoot the system.
nor do i know if it works 100% or not. it may have its limitations. hals system
has no limitations, therefore i shoot it. i told DAVE i was glad he was
responding to our group. i too am curious to hear and learn all he has to say.
shall we both listen?
linda moss
LMoss18701
>From: Patrick Johnson
>1. An endorsement from Linda isn't worth much. She never met a system
>she didn't like, or a critique she understood.
1. pat is one of the disbelievers i was refering to. only contact point or
ghost ball for him. yes, i have met quite a few systems that i do not like! i
toss them out and keep the good ones. and on the flip side, pat had never found
a 'SYSTEM" THAT WORKS".FOR HIM."
>(Endorsements
>from Linda don't count.)
3. pat,
i did not see in my post to dave or anyone else an endorsement of his
aiming system. i merely stated that i owned his tape and that i understood the
concept he was trying to get across. i did not say i shoot his aiming system,
as all should know by now that i shoot HAL HOULES aiming system. i did however
tell dave i was glad to see him onboard and did not want him to get discouraged
as a new poster by the negatism that haunts or newsgroup. i too am interested
in hearing his answers to questions as it seems are a few others.
gee!! (endorsements from linda do not count). gee! just because i said i owned
the tape i have endorsed it-----let me go see what else i own that would be
considered an endorsement----mmmmm elephant balls--yep!i own them -they are
endorsed----mmmmm bob byrnes books--yep! i own 2 of them--i guess that endorses
them.
gee! pat i am sorry if i somehow stepped on your toe, as i have always tried to
be kind----well their has been a few times i got upset with some of the
others-but never you. we seemed to always be able to have civil
disagreements---more on a friendly tone.
LINDA MOSS
LMoss18701
SNIP
> (Hopefully this wont lead too another
>200plus thread on Hals system -smile).
NEVER FEAR! this will not lead to another 200 plus thread. i am not going
there!!!! but, i can smell those fish frying!
linda
Ken Bour
None of my questions were answered after watching the tape several times. I
even showed it to an engineer friend who is a skilled pool player. We both
worked on it for awhile, making sure that we were both applying the ideas
correctly. Neither one of us could make the system work even for relatively
shallow angles without dramatically swerving the cuestick or striking so
hard with expreme sidespin that we squirted the cueball sufficiently to
force the proper angle.
My friend has drawn several diagrams with balls, lines, angles, etc., to
demonstrate that this system cannot work for certain wider angles (e.g. at
60 deg. it's not even in the ballpark). He's in the process of attempting
to define the limits within which it will work. I will post these
Powerpoint graphics on my web site for anyone interested. I would do it
directly to RSB, but I don't know how to draw circles accurately in ASCII
text.
The fact that 299 people wrote to you saying that the "system" works for
them is not explanation or justification, only testimonial. It's nice to
know that folks find your ideas helpful, but it's also important to some of
us that there be a theoretical backing for the system as well.
Incidentally, should an "Ultimate Aiming System" account for all angles in
pool or are there limitations?
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
<pool...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5849-37A...@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Pat:
> Have you seen the tape? If you have not, then your questions will be
> answered upon watching the tape. If you have seen the tape, then I will
> try to answer your questions.
>
John Walkup
>
> >Ultimate Aiming System
> >From: Patrick Johnson
>
> >1. An endorsement from Linda isn't worth much. She never met a system
> >she didn't like, or a critique she understood.
>
> 1. pat is one of the disbelievers i was refering to. only contact point or
> ghost ball for him. yes, i have met quite a few systems that i do not like! i
> toss them out and keep the good ones. and on the flip side, pat had never found
> a 'SYSTEM" THAT WORKS".FOR HIM."
Possibly because he has reasonable eye/muscle coordination and
doesn't need one.
--
John Walkup
John Walkup
>
> Dave:
>
> None of my questions were answered after watching the tape several times. I
> even showed it to an engineer friend who is a skilled pool player. We both
> worked on it for awhile, making sure that we were both applying the ideas
> correctly. Neither one of us could make the system work even for relatively
> shallow angles without dramatically swerving the cuestick or striking so
> hard with expreme sidespin that we squirted the cueball sufficiently to
> force the proper angle.
Or simply cheating the system a little. If you really want the
system to work, you can even cheat and not know it. Amazing, but
true.
> My friend has drawn several diagrams with balls, lines, angles, etc., to
> demonstrate that this system cannot work for certain wider angles (e.g. at
> 60 deg. it's not even in the ballpark). He's in the process of attempting
> to define the limits within which it will work. I will post these
> Powerpoint graphics on my web site for anyone interested. I would do it
> directly to RSB, but I don't know how to draw circles accurately in ASCII
> text.
You're wasting your time, since some in this newsgroup don't even
believe in the laws of simple trigonometry and geometry. The Houle
method
relies on the (ahem) "fact" that the arctan(1/2) is 30 degrees. (!)
> The fact that 299 people wrote to you saying that the "system" works for
> them is not explanation or justification, only testimonial.
Testimonials rank at the very bottom when it comes to credibility.
In fact, I have a device for leaching radioactive salt into water for
drinking, and this device has a Helluva' lot more testimonials
than any pool tape. Care for a drink? :)
BTW, the proper word is "hearsay" until someone verifies that these
people
actually made these statements.
Speaking of testimonials, we haven't heard from Sam lately on how
placing magnets all over his body cures his back aches.
--
John Walkup
pool...@webtv.net
I also have an engineer friend who works for Shell Chemical who also
plays pool. He put the system on his computer and was amazed at how
accurate it was. After finding this, he then showed other engineers the
system and they found it to work also. I then went to a physics teacher
(Professor John Lee of Washington State Community College of Marrietta,
Ohio}
He also plays pool. After he tried the system, he was amazed. All I gave
him was a piece of paper showing how the system worked. He was willing
to help in any way in making the tape because he was so impressed. Ken,
I did try to do all my homework before making tis tape. I wanted to hold
the critisism down to a minimum. I feel I have accomplished that.
As far as lmitations on when your own instincts have to be used, I feel
after 45 degrees human nature has to take over. That is my opinion. No
system is flawless. I can't say you are trying to discredit me, but I'm
not ready to hire you as a spokesman either. You will go to your grave
saying it won't work and I wll go to my grave saying it will. Freedom of
speech in action. I do appreciate your comments.
Thomas Boerner
> ALL systems have limitations. Some have more than others.
I don't think so. I always look for the contact point and if I hit it correctly,
the ball will go where I want. You have to adjust for side spin (squirt, throw,
etc.), yes, but that will be different for any other cue, so you have to adjust
every aiming system according to the behavior of your cue.
Regards, Thomas
Michael Page
pool...@webtv.net wrote:
[...]
You will go to your grave
> saying it won't work and I wll go to my grave saying it will. Freedom of
> speech in action.
Actually, Ken is a logical and reasonable person who is open to new ideas.
His mind has been changed in this newsgroup before by people who describe
honestly and completely what it is they feel they have to offer.
---
mike page
fargo
Patrick Johnson
> pat had never found a 'SYSTEM" THAT WORKS".FOR HIM."
I use some "methods" that you might consider "systems," like using the
diamonds to estimate bank angles. The difference is, my methods are
always grounded in the basic geometric and physical principles that
underly pool. These principles are exceedingly simple, and any method
or system that reflects them should be immediately understandable (to
most). If you have to "buy the tape" for a system to make sense, you
can bet it doesn't. If you can't apply simple logic and understand the
results, then you're Dave's target market. Enjoy one another, but bring
it here and I'll point you out.
Jay
the contact point on the object ball using the edge of the tip. Correct? I
have not seen the tape but I will agree with Pat on many points. If the
system makes sense, it will make sense upon initial explanation. It should
also stand up to further scrutiny. The Ultimate Aiming System doesn't seem
to stand up to such scrutiny.
First of all, how is any aiming system based on using the tip going to work
when all tips are different diameters (unless there is one that uses the
center of the tip)? If I shoot with my stick (11mm tip) and Ken shoots with
his (12.75mm) and Joe Shmo shoots with his (14mm) how can we all get the
same results? What if I use a pin? I'm going to go out on a limb here and
say that there isn't even a range of tip sizes for which it will work
(assuming that it works for any tip size to begin with).
What about english, etc.?
I'm getting this feeling of deja vu. This seems very much like the Houle
discussion(s). Neither of these systems make sense on the surface (or under
it). They both defy the rules of geometry and/or physics. Neither one of
the "inventors" (is that the correct term?) or rather, its proponents,
seems quite forthcoming about its shortcomings. You don't even seem as if
you want to answer questions about it.
This is a ng about pool. This tells me that there are a lot of sick people
in the world (myself included) that have nothing better to do with their
time than hit plastic balls with wooden sticks. There are many people on
this ng (myself included again) who are obsessed with pool. If someone told
me that some system worked (or a book was helpful, or a shaft reduces
squirt, etc.) then I would want to find out more about it. If the person
who "invented" the system (wrote the book, manufactured the shaft, etc.)
was available to me to talk to and ask questions of I would. If this person
was evasive I would think to myself, well, I'm glad I found out before
wasting my money. If, however, the person explained everything to me (pro
and con) I would STILL BUY THE GOODS. I'm sure many people are like me in
that respect. You seem to not want to talk about your system because you
are worried about selling more tapes (at least that is what it seems
like-I'm very skeptical and cynical about most stuff). Just like with the
Houle system, if you can't explain why (or why not) it's probably because
it doesn't work.
There is a lot of misinformation in pool. Much of what I know now, I
learned in this ng. Just because something works, or seems to work, for
some people, doesn't mean that those people have even the slightest clue as
to why it works. Many players still think that you hit the object ball and
rail at the same time to run the object ball down the rail when this is
absolutely incorrect (well, maybe it's right when the angle is not too
steep). Think about if I was an instructor and I was teaching beginners how
to run the ball down the rail. I teach them to contact the object ball and
rail at the same time. "Here, let me show you. See. That's how it's done.
Go ahead, how you try it.... Well, that was close but you aren't hitting it
properly, try it again. Try again, again, again.... Ok. See that. You made
the shot. Keep practicing. See.. As long as you hit the rail and ball at
the same time, you can make the shot." This person becomes a proponent of
my system and teaches it to others. Every time that they miss, it is
because they didn't follow the system. Every time that they make the shot,
it is because the system works. They don't realize that they are doing
something else that causes them to make the shot. Just because the "system
works" doesn't mean that the system really is working.
I'm not trying to flame you or your system but like Pat said, if a simple
explanation can't really explain it then it probably doesn't work. You
can't just ask people to disregard certain rules of geometry/physics/logic.
JW uses his system of gut feel. I know lots of players who shoot this way.
Most of them are far better shooters than I am. I have no idea how they can
line up shots without lining up the contact point but they do. This really
isn't a system, I guess, but it works for one reason only; he has played
long enough that he knows about where to hit. It is not a system that can
be taught to anyone by anyone. It is a system that can only be learned
through experience. My method is to find the contact point and using my own
experience, figure out how to aim the cue ball to contact the object ball
in the correct place. This system can be taught, but again it would rely
mostly on experience.
If there was a system that could simplify the aiming process, every half
serious player would be all over it, or, the "inventor" would simply never
tell another soul and be winning every tournament, or play anyone and
everyone for high stakes. Judging from the answers you have given to Pat
and Joey I would guess that that is all we need to know about the UAS. If
there is something that I, or anyone else, is not understanding about the
system, let me know. I'll be one of the first ones to buy your tape/method.
Jeffrey Weiss
> Dave, I have never seen your tape. I own a Billiard Supply Company. Where
> can I get it and what does it cost. E-mail if you like. Sincerely, Sam
There you go again, "Sam"!
--
jw (NYC)
bp
So where can someone check out this system ?
>Hi Ken. Sorry the system didn't work for you. What size shaft do you
>have? A fellow wrote me to tell me he was using a 12mm shaft and the
>system didn't work for him. He then went to a 13mm shaft and the system
>worked. I have used it with a broom handle before. Whatever the reason,
>I wish it would have worked for you.
>The feeling of not having to second guess yourself is great. I thank you
>for your response.
bp
So where can I get this Hals system ?
bp
wrote:
>I think most aiming is intuitive,
A agree. I think EVERYBODY has the ability to see the point needed to
make a shot and advanced player know what needs to be changed to make
shots that need english. Where these systems fail is in the fact that
aiming isn't the real problem.
It is IMO:
How you approach the table/shoot.
How you bend over getting ready to shot.
How you swing the cue.
How you follow through.
How you hit the cue ball
etc etc
Without all these (and some I'm sure I left out) NO system is every
going to work, if you:
Can't line up straight
Can't bend over the shoot lined up.
Can't bring the cue back straight
Can't follow through straight
Can't hit the Cue ball in the correct spot.
etc etc
How can a aiming system help these things ??
Jay
and the Houle system fail on their own merits. The basic premise behind
them is faulty. Everyone knows if you can't hit the ball correctly then
you will have problems but it seems with these two systems, sometimes
when you hit the ball correctly you have problems.
Bob Jewett
: Hi everyone, I am Dave Mullen, the creator of the "Ultimate Aiming
: System" video.
Hi Dave,
Would you be willing to describe how your system works?
I can understand why you would not be willing to since you are still selling
the tapes. I think comments from the originator are a lot more use than
suppositions and hypotheses from from those who have seen the tape and
perhaps not understood it.
Bob Jewett
John Walkup
>
> I'm not trying to flame you or your system but like Pat said, if a simple
> explanation can't really explain it then it probably doesn't work. You
> can't just ask people to disregard certain rules of geometry/physics/logic.
> JW uses his system of gut feel. I know lots of players who shoot this way.
I would venture to say that ALL of your top players use gut feel,
because it is the only method that has sufficient precision and
flexibility. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Some pros
may THINK they use a system, but in reality the system is only
a first guess before their gut feel takes over. Why a pro would
have to use a system to figure out where to aim is beyond me.)
Why are systems so popular with kicks and banks? Simply because
the average pool player doesn't shoot enough kicks and banks to
develop the proper feel, so he must use a crutch to help him
along. Gary Spaeth, bank pool champion, probably doesn't rely
on a system to shoot banks. If I am right, it is because he
shoots so many bank shots that he has developed a natural feel
for them. (Sherm can probably tell us for sure.) I would bet
that Gary can walk up to a bank shot and, without thinking,
just rifle it in.
To me, any aiming system is first base. But to progress you have to
get off first base.
--
John Walkup The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
Authorized Dealer: Verl Horn Cues Russ Espiritu Custom Cues
John Walkup
Sam is every telemarketer's dream.
John Walkup
>
> On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 16:45:13 -0500, Phat Mack <phat...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think most aiming is intuitive,
> A agree. I think EVERYBODY has the ability to see the point needed to
> make a shot and advanced player know what needs to be changed to make
> shots that need english. Where these systems fail is in the fact that
> aiming isn't the real problem.
> It is IMO:
> How you approach the table/shoot.
> How you bend over getting ready to shot.
> How you swing the cue.
> How you follow through.
> How you hit the cue ball
> etc etc
>
> Without all these (and some I'm sure I left out) NO system is every
> going to work, if you:
> Can't line up straight
> Can't bend over the shoot lined up.
> Can't bring the cue back straight
> Can't follow through straight
> Can't hit the Cue ball in the correct spot.
> etc etc
>
> How can a aiming system help these things ??
Exactly. Most beginners think they missed because they didn't aim
correctly, but in reality the points you detailed above are usually
the culprit. Shooting hard is their most common mistake, because
it amplifies the above problems.
greg miller
Patrick Johnson wrote
[....]
> Here are three simple questions:
>
> 1. For center ball hits (no spin), how can the edge of the stick
> always point at the correct object ball contact point as the cut
angle
> changes?
1.1. How can it work for all diameter shafts?
1.2. How can it work for all tapers?
> 2. For spin shots (at the same cut angle), how can the edge of the
> stick always point at the correct object ball contact point as the
> stick moves to produce different amounts of spin?
>
> 3. If you can't or won't answer these questions, why should anyone
> believe you know what you're talking about?
4. Is the name "Ultimate Aiming System" really a misnomer or,given
these times, are you saying that the end is near?
Another stick into the RSB antpile.
sam
response. How in the world do feel comfortable speaking for what Gary does
or doesn't do? I could say "I'll bet JW doesn't cheat on his wife".
Whoopee. I'm either right or wrong, but have no basis for knowing either
way. For a scientist, that was a pretty wild statement. Sincerely, Sam
(why don't you ask Gary and then your post will have more meaning.)
John Walkup wrote in message <37AF34...@telepath.com>...
>Jay wrote:
>>
>
>> I'm not trying to flame you or your system but like Pat said, if a simple
>> explanation can't really explain it then it probably doesn't work. You
>> can't just ask people to disregard certain rules of
geometry/physics/logic.
>> JW uses his system of gut feel. I know lots of players who shoot this
way.
>
>I would venture to say that ALL of your top players use gut feel,
>because it is the only method that has sufficient precision and
>flexibility. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Some pros
>may THINK they use a system, but in reality the system is only
>a first guess before their gut feel takes over. Why a pro would
>have to use a system to figure out where to aim is beyond me.)
>
>Why are systems so popular with kicks and banks? Simply because
>the average pool player doesn't shoot enough kicks and banks to
>develop the proper feel, so he must use a crutch to help him
>along. Gary Spaeth, bank pool champion, probably doesn't rely
>on a system to shoot banks. If I am right, it is because he
>shoots so many bank shots that he has developed a natural feel
>for them. (Sherm can probably tell us for sure.) I would bet
>that Gary can walk up to a bank shot and, without thinking,
>just rifle it in.
>
>To me, any aiming system is first base. But to progress you have to
>get off first base.
>
halh...@webtv.net
the two balls.
sam
anything that would be considered INVENTORY. Does this make sense to you?
Sincerely, Sam (going to start buying cues at retail and give a 10% Senior
Discount. I know that I'll lose money, but I'm going to make it up in
volume. Ha Ha)
Jeffrey Weiss wrote in message
<1999080917...@nhrmdc204.fw.gs.com>...
>"sam" <s...@lasercom.net> the "billiard supply" man's lookin' for more
bargains:
>> Dave, I have never seen your tape. I own a Billiard Supply Company.
Where
>> can I get it and what does it cost. E-mail if you like. Sincerely, Sam
>
>There you go again, "Sam"!
>--
>jw (NYC)
>
Patrick Johnson
> Contact point to contact point cannot meet because of the curvature
> of the two balls.
It's only possible to hit the object ball contact point with one point
on the cue ball (the correct one). That's why you can't aim the same
cue ball contact point (the one pointed to by the edge of the stick
when at center ball) at every contact point on the object ball to make
all the different possible shots. It's only good for one shot (about a
15-degree angle). That's why this system can't work.
Is that what you're saying, Hal?
Mike Page
halh...@webtv.net wrote:
> Contact point to contact point cannot meet because of the curvature of
> the two balls.
I don't understand the way you're using these words Hal. Isn't the
"contact point" on the object ball by definition the point (or center of
the region) contacted by the cueball?
--
mike page
fargo
sam
A. I never made a statement about Don Feeney being a student of
Hal's.
B. The statement "Gary Spaeth probably doesn't rely on a
system...." is an assumption without merit on your part.
C. The "If I am right...." simply is an effort to reinforce
your bogus assumption.
D. Your "I could be wrong" is simply a disclaimer supposedly
relieving you of all responsibility for your unwarranted and uninvestigated
statement.
E. Your "I would venture to say that ALL of your top players
use gut feel" is another assumption without investigation on your part.
F. Your ".....it is the only method that has sufficient
precision and flexibility...." is an unproven opinion based on your
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
G. Your "....but in reality the system is only a first
guess...." is another unqualified and uninvestigated, statement.
H. Your "Why a pro would have to use a system to figure out
where to aim is beyond me" was your only intelligent statement in the entire
post. Since you are the only AUTHORITY on yourself, I have no problem
believing that it is "beyond you", as are most of our conversations. Ha Ha
Here then is my statement: JW has PROBABLY never worked long enough with
SYSTEMS to find out if they work. IF I AM RIGHT, it is probably because he
is either too lazy or doesn't have the time. I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I DON'T
THINK I AM. (John, may THINK that systems don't work, BUT IN REALITY, he is
probably using them himself but is not aware of it and credits his shooting
ability to gut feel.) Why John would post some of the things he does is
certainly NOT BEYOND ME. Ha Ha
Sincerely, Sam (wonders if John sees the similarity of my "statement" and
his post. Ha Ha)
John Walkup wrote in message <37AF88...@telepath.com>...
>sam wrote:
>>
>Here is one thing I said:
>
>"I would venture to say that ALL of your top players use gut feel,
>because it is the only method that has sufficient precision and
>flexibility. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Some pros
>may THINK they use a system, but in reality the system is only
>a first guess before their gut feel takes over. Why a pro would
>have to use a system to figure out where to aim is beyond me.)"
>
>Notice how I don't make any assertions without the qualifiers
>that I could be wrong. Contrast that with the "Don Feeney
>is one of Hal's students" crap that was floated around.
>
>Here is another statement I made:
>
>"Gary Spaeth, bank pool champion, probably doesn't rely
>on a system to shoot banks. If I am right, it is because he
>shoots so many bank shots that he has developed a natural feel
>for them."
>
>Notice I said "If I am right," which proves that I am allowing
>the possibility that I could be wrong. This is far more
>leeway than the Houligans provide. Remember Don Feeney?
sam
also teaches on one of his tapes. If so, I found the limit to be about 35
to 40 degrees before having to adjust. Sincerely, Sam
Tom Simpson wrote in message <37af99d5....@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 12:06:12 -0400, Jay
><jci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>::I f I am understanding the method correctly, it is a way of figuring out
>::the contact point on the object ball using the edge of the tip. Correct?
>
>Not quite. The system uses the inside edge of the shaft.
>Line that edge up, pointing it at the contact point on the
>OB.
>
>::First of all, how is any aiming system based on using the tip going to
work
>::when all tips are different diameters (unless there is one that uses the
>::center of the tip)?
>
>Since you are using the edge of the tip, and that's the part
>of the tip that actually contacts the CB when you hit with
>english, the shaft diameter does not matter for this system.
>::
>::What about english, etc.?
>
>English is the whole point of this system. It is a method
>for estimating how to aim when using english.
>
>::I'm getting this feeling of deja vu. This seems very much like the Houle
>::discussion(s). Neither of these systems make sense on the surface (or
under
>::it). They both defy the rules of geometry and/or physics. Neither one of
>::the "inventors" (is that the correct term?) or rather, its proponents,
>::seems quite forthcoming about its shortcomings. You don't even seem as if
>::you want to answer questions about it.
>
>I don't know Dave, but I've seen the tape. My guess is Dave
>does not know the physics of why it works, just that it does
>seem to work.
>
>I think the part of this system that people are not getting
>is that you must line up the inide edge of the shaft to the
>OB contact point. Use as much english as you want, but line
>up the stick. I think most people apply english by pivoting.
>This system requires you to move the whole stick, and
>because it forces you to think with the edge of the tip
>instead of the center, it JUST LOOKS WRONG when you do it.
>Further, because you don't get the stick into position the
>way you normally do, it doesn't look right to you, and you
>may make a subconscious adjustment.
>
>Folks, this is an ESTIMATION. It's not perfect, and it has
>limits. But, IMO, it's a worthwhile estimation tool. Let's
>see if we can figure out why it works (or within what limits
>it works).
>
> tom simpson
sam
systems (when properly executed) are so valuable. Sincerely, Sam
Ken Bour wrote in message <7oobpg$o1k$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>Thomas:
>
>I don't understand. When you refer to "contact point" are you saying that
>you can judge the precise spot that the cueball has to strike the object
>ball in order to pocket the ball? If so, can you share with us how you
make
>that determination for varying angles? I, for one, find it very difficult
>to figure out how to line up the cueball's contact point with the object
>ball's contact point. I think others have difficulty with this also which
>is why the ghost ball system is so useful.
>
>--
>Ken Bour
>Sterling, VA
>http://www.erols.com/kbour
>
>
>Thomas Boerner <Thomas....@dlr.de> wrote in message
>news:37AEA98F...@dlr.de...
sam
experiment to find out where they are effective and what is the "envelope"
of this system or any other. The problem I am having with your solution
(with all due respect to Ron, Bob, JW, Mike and any other engineers,
scientists, and mathematicians) to the problem is always turning to MATH and
PHYSICS. Visual acuity, parallax, depth perception, distance to an object,
and numerous other factors come in to play when determining whether a system
works for an INDIVIDUAL or not. Theoretically, the Ghost ball system with
adjustment for throw and swerve should be the ultimate mathematical and
physics solution for any shot. Right? BUT, seemingly some of these OTHER
systems work quite well for different individuals APART from Math and
Physics. HEAR ME NOW. I AM NOT SAYING that the individual is defying Math
and Physics. I am saying that in the minds eye of the individual, they are
seeing something that works quite well. EXAMPLE: I NEVER look at where to
hit the rail on a bank shot. I only look at the portion of the ball that I
want to hit and aim at that portion. Heck, works for me. It does not mean
that I am defying math or physics. It only means that I have developed a
system that satisfies the objective. Sincerely, Sam
Ken Bour wrote in message <7ood2s$6v$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
>Amen! It's too bad that there's no mention of any limitations on the video
>tape, but that's now history. What we can do is to analyze this idea,
which
>I'm told has been circulating around pool halls for decades, and find out
>its boundaries. There are enough talented mathematicians in RSB to help
>with this problem. BTW, where's Ron on this issue? Surely this is APAPP
>(sp?) material!
sam
whether Gary shoots by feel or with a system. I was questioning our
"resident authority" on how he could make such statements with no knowledge
of whether he was right or wrong. I am sure that while MANY pros shoot with
ONLY feel, that many others have developed PERSONAL systems which they use,
but are not going to discuss with the public. As I stated in the past, my
long banks are pretty darn good, and I would like to let you believe that
this is some kind of personal talent, but that would be a lie. I have
worked with a ball to ball relationship system that allows me to determine
where I should hit the object ball in order to have it sink. Were I a Pro,
I may not be divulging that information. Again, it was not an issue of
whether Gary uses a system or not, it is simply that JW is convinced that
Pros do not need systems. I think this statement is an assumption rather
than a fact. Just my opinion. Sincerely, Sam
Sherm Adamson wrote in message <37AFB881...@shermcue.com>...
>Sam,
>Actually John is pretty close to right about Gary. He shoots by feel and
>experience. He knows where the ball is supposed to go from having shot the
shots
>over & over again. When he approaches a table he has a few banks he tries,
to
>see if the balls are come up long or short. He then uses this feedback to
zero
>in on how a particular table is playing, but from there its just feel!
Damnedest
>thing I ever saw!!! I've seen him put Bugs Rucker in a coma, and anyone who
know
>bank pool knows Bugs was the "real deal". I'd say the 4 best bankers of all
>times would be Eddie Taylor, Bugs Rucker, Gary Spaeth and Donnie Anderson
and
>having seen all 4 play I'd say they ALL play by feel!
>
>sam wrote:
>
>> John, I really have been avoiding this thread, but your comment needs a
>> response. How in the world do feel comfortable speaking for what Gary
does
>> or doesn't do? I could say "I'll bet JW doesn't cheat on his wife".
>> Whoopee. I'm either right or wrong, but have no basis for knowing either
>> way. For a scientist, that was a pretty wild statement. Sincerely, Sam
>> (why don't you ask Gary and then your post will have more meaning.)
>>
>> John Walkup wrote in message <37AF34...@telepath.com>...
>> >Jay wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> I'm not trying to flame you or your system but like Pat said, if a
simple
>> >> explanation can't really explain it then it probably doesn't work. You
>> >> can't just ask people to disregard certain rules of
>> geometry/physics/logic.
>> >> JW uses his system of gut feel. I know lots of players who shoot this
>> way.
>> >
>> >I would venture to say that ALL of your top players use gut feel,
>> >because it is the only method that has sufficient precision and
>> >flexibility. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Some pros
>> >may THINK they use a system, but in reality the system is only
>> >a first guess before their gut feel takes over. Why a pro would
>> >have to use a system to figure out where to aim is beyond me.)
>> >
>> >Why are systems so popular with kicks and banks? Simply because
>> >the average pool player doesn't shoot enough kicks and banks to
>> >develop the proper feel, so he must use a crutch to help him
>> >along. Gary Spaeth, bank pool champion, probably doesn't rely
>> >on a system to shoot banks. If I am right, it is because he
>> >shoots so many bank shots that he has developed a natural feel
>> >for them. (Sherm can probably tell us for sure.) I would bet
>> >that Gary can walk up to a bank shot and, without thinking,
>> >just rifle it in.
>> >
>> >To me, any aiming system is first base. But to progress you have to
>> >get off first base.
>> >
>> >--
>> >John Walkup The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
>> >
>> >Authorized Dealer: Verl Horn Cues Russ Espiritu Custom Cues
>
>--
>
> Sherm Custom Cues
> by Sherman "Sherm" Adamson
> 3352 Nine Mile Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45255
> Shop (513) 553-2172 Fax (513) 553-0417
> e-mail, sh...@shermcue.com
> http://www.shermcue.com
> (Webpage Constantly Under Construction)
>
>
sam
He's just a pain in the ass!! Ha Ha Sincerely, Sam (like I'm not)
>> >> I'm not trying to flame you or your system but like Pat said, if a
simple
>> >> explanation can't really explain it then it probably doesn't work. You
>> >> can't just ask people to disregard certain rules of
>> geometry/physics/logic.
>> >> JW uses his system of gut feel. I know lots of players who shoot this
>> way.
>> >
John Walkup
>
> John, I really have been avoiding this thread, but your comment needs a
> response. How in the world do feel comfortable speaking for what Gary does
> or doesn't do?
I'm not, which is why I use the qualifier "probably" and I asked
Sherm if he could provide additional info.
> I could say "I'll bet JW doesn't cheat on his wife".
Oh yeah, that is relevant. :)
> Whoopee. I'm either right or wrong, but have no basis for knowing either
> way. For a scientist, that was a pretty wild statement.
Who said I was making a scientific statement?
Aaron
Thanks,
Zoommmm.....
pool...@webtv.net wrote:
> Hi everyone, I am Dave Mullen, the creator of the "Ultimate Aiming
John Walkup
>
> John, I really have been avoiding this thread, but your comment needs a
> response. How in the world do feel comfortable speaking for what Gary does
> Whoopee. I'm either right or wrong, but have no basis for knowing either
> (why don't you ask Gary and then your post will have more meaning.)
Here is one thing I said:
"I would venture to say that ALL of your top players use gut feel,
because it is the only method that has sufficient precision and
flexibility. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Some pros
may THINK they use a system, but in reality the system is only
a first guess before their gut feel takes over. Why a pro would
have to use a system to figure out where to aim is beyond me.)"
Notice how I don't make any assertions without the qualifiers
that I could be wrong. Contrast that with the "Don Feeney
is one of Hal's students" crap that was floated around.
Here is another statement I made:
"Gary Spaeth, bank pool champion, probably doesn't rely
on a system to shoot banks. If I am right, it is because he
shoots so many bank shots that he has developed a natural feel
for them."
Notice I said "If I am right," which proves that I am allowing
the possibility that I could be wrong. This is far more
leeway than the Houligans provide. Remember Don Feeney?
Tom Simpson
<jci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
::I f I am understanding the method correctly, it is a way of figuring out
::the contact point on the object ball using the edge of the tip. Correct?
Not quite. The system uses the inside edge of the shaft.
Line that edge up, pointing it at the contact point on the
OB.
::First of all, how is any aiming system based on using the tip going to work
::when all tips are different diameters (unless there is one that uses the
::center of the tip)?
Since you are using the edge of the tip, and that's the part
of the tip that actually contacts the CB when you hit with
english, the shaft diameter does not matter for this system.
::
::What about english, etc.?
English is the whole point of this system. It is a method
for estimating how to aim when using english.
::I'm getting this feeling of deja vu. This seems very much like the Houle
::discussion(s). Neither of these systems make sense on the surface (or under
::it). They both defy the rules of geometry and/or physics. Neither one of
::the "inventors" (is that the correct term?) or rather, its proponents,
::seems quite forthcoming about its shortcomings. You don't even seem as if
::you want to answer questions about it.
I don't know Dave, but I've seen the tape. My guess is Dave
Ken Bour
I don't understand. When you refer to "contact point" are you saying that
you can judge the precise spot that the cueball has to strike the object
ball in order to pocket the ball? If so, can you share with us how you make
that determination for varying angles? I, for one, find it very difficult
to figure out how to line up the cueball's contact point with the object
ball's contact point. I think others have difficulty with this also which
is why the ghost ball system is so useful.
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
Ken Bour
endorsement.
In the spirit of learning, I would ask Dave to share the drawings,
schematics, and computer work (?) performed at his request by his
colleagues. I have also promised to show some diagrams prepared by an
engineering friend.
We'll let the facts loose and, who knows, maybe we'll all learn something.
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
<pool...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16886-37...@newsd-162.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Ken:
> I also have an engineer friend who works for Shell Chemical who also
> plays pool. He put the system on his computer and was amazed at how
> accurate it was. After finding this, he then showed other engineers the
> system and they found it to work also. I then went to a physics teacher
> (Professor John Lee of Washington State Community College of Marrietta,
> Ohio}
> He also plays pool. After he tried the system, he was amazed. All I gave
> him was a piece of paper showing how the system worked. He was willing
> to help in any way in making the tape because he was so impressed. Ken,
> I did try to do all my homework before making tis tape. I wanted to hold
> the critisism down to a minimum. I feel I have accomplished that.
> As far as lmitations on when your own instincts have to be used, I feel
> after 45 degrees human nature has to take over. That is my opinion. No
> system is flawless. I can't say you are trying to discredit me, but I'm
> not ready to hire you as a spokesman either. You will go to your grave
> saying it won't work and I wll go to my grave saying it will. Freedom of
> speech in action. I do appreciate your comments.
Ken Bour
news:37af99d5....@news.newsguy.com...[SNIP]
> Folks, this is an ESTIMATION. It's not perfect, and it has
> limits. But, IMO, it's a worthwhile estimation tool. Let's
> see if we can figure out why it works (or within what limits
> it works).
Amen! It's too bad that there's no mention of any limitations on the video
tape, but that's now history. What we can do is to analyze this idea, which
I'm told has been circulating around pool halls for decades, and find out
its boundaries. There are enough talented mathematicians in RSB to help
with this problem. BTW, where's Ron on this issue? Surely this is APAPP
(sp?) material!
--
Sherm Adamson
Actually John is pretty close to right about Gary. He shoots by feel and
experience. He knows where the ball is supposed to go from having shot the shots
over & over again. When he approaches a table he has a few banks he tries, to
see if the balls are come up long or short. He then uses this feedback to zero
in on how a particular table is playing, but from there its just feel! Damnedest
thing I ever saw!!! I've seen him put Bugs Rucker in a coma, and anyone who know
bank pool knows Bugs was the "real deal". I'd say the 4 best bankers of all
times would be Eddie Taylor, Bugs Rucker, Gary Spaeth and Donnie Anderson and
having seen all 4 play I'd say they ALL play by feel!
sam wrote:
> John, I really have been avoiding this thread, but your comment needs a
> response. How in the world do feel comfortable speaking for what Gary does
> or doesn't do? I could say "I'll bet JW doesn't cheat on his wife".
> Whoopee. I'm either right or wrong, but have no basis for knowing either
> way. For a scientist, that was a pretty wild statement. Sincerely, Sam
> (why don't you ask Gary and then your post will have more meaning.)
>
> John Walkup wrote in message <37AF34...@telepath.com>...
> >Jay wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> I'm not trying to flame you or your system but like Pat said, if a simple
> >> explanation can't really explain it then it probably doesn't work. You
> >> can't just ask people to disregard certain rules of
> geometry/physics/logic.
> >> JW uses his system of gut feel. I know lots of players who shoot this
> way.
> >
> >I would venture to say that ALL of your top players use gut feel,
> >because it is the only method that has sufficient precision and
> >flexibility. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Some pros
> >may THINK they use a system, but in reality the system is only
> >a first guess before their gut feel takes over. Why a pro would
> >have to use a system to figure out where to aim is beyond me.)
> >
> >Why are systems so popular with kicks and banks? Simply because
> >the average pool player doesn't shoot enough kicks and banks to
> >develop the proper feel, so he must use a crutch to help him
> >along. Gary Spaeth, bank pool champion, probably doesn't rely
> >on a system to shoot banks. If I am right, it is because he
> >shoots so many bank shots that he has developed a natural feel
> >for them. (Sherm can probably tell us for sure.) I would bet
> >that Gary can walk up to a bank shot and, without thinking,
> >just rifle it in.
> >
> >To me, any aiming system is first base. But to progress you have to
> >get off first base.
> >
> >--
> >John Walkup The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
> >
> >Authorized Dealer: Verl Horn Cues Russ Espiritu Custom Cues
--
Smorgass Bored
Notice how I don't make any assertions without the qualifiers that I
could be wrong.
possibility that I could be wrong.
(*<~ Well,I'm the same weight as Shaquille O'neal and if I were a
foot and half taller I'd be the most dominating center in the NBA, I
think.
let's don't even talk about John Holmes,
Doug W.
~>*)))>< Big fish eat Little fish ><(((*<~
Ken Bour
after one of my posts on the Ultimate Aiming System. I think he sent me a
description of the system a year or two ago, which I saved, but he also
invited me to contact him if I want to get another copy.
--
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
http://www.erols.com/kbour
sam <s...@lasercom.net> wrote in message news:37af...@news.compuvar.com...
> Ken, You're going to shoot me for this, but it is also why Hal Houle's
> systems (when properly executed) are so valuable. Sincerely, Sam
>
> Ken Bour wrote in message <7oobpg$o1k$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
> >Thomas:
> >
> >I don't understand. When you refer to "contact point" are you saying
that
> >you can judge the precise spot that the cueball has to strike the object
> >ball in order to pocket the ball? If so, can you share with us how you
> make
> >that determination for varying angles? I, for one, find it very
difficult
> >to figure out how to line up the cueball's contact point with the object
> >ball's contact point. I think others have difficulty with this also
which
> >is why the ghost ball system is so useful.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Bour
> >Sterling, VA
> >http://www.erols.com/kbour
> >
> >
John Walkup
>
> (*<~ Well,I'm the same weight as Shaquille O'neal and if I were a
> foot and half taller I'd be the most dominating center in the NBA, I
> think.
> let's don't even talk about John Holmes,
Why? Do you have AIDS too?
John Walkup
>
> Sherm, I appreciate your input, but let me state that I was not questioning
> whether Gary shoots by feel or with a system. I was questioning our
> "resident authority" on how he could make such statements with no knowledge
> of whether he was right or wrong. I am sure that while MANY pros shoot with
> ONLY feel,
> that many others have developed PERSONAL systems which they use,
> but are not going to discuss with the public.
Sounds like one of those unfounded assertions that you were just
complaining
about.
> As I stated in the past, my
> long banks are pretty darn good, and I would like to let you believe that
> this is some kind of personal talent, but that would be a lie. I have
> worked with a ball to ball relationship system that allows me to determine
> where I should hit the object ball in order to have it sink. Were I a Pro,
> I may not be divulging that information.
Ye olde Conspiracy Theory. Gary is really using a system, but it's
TOP SECRET. Oh yeah, that must be it.
> Again, it was not an issue of
> whether Gary uses a system or not, it is simply that JW is convinced that
> Pros do not need systems. I think this statement is an assumption rather
> than a fact. Just my opinion. Sincerely, Sam
It is an assumption based on solid reasoning, which I have detailed in
this newsgroup (and ASP) many times. You, on the other hand, have not
provided one good reason yet that a pro would need to use a system.
One thing you don't understand, Sam, is that I named Gary for a
very specific reason: I know that Sherm knows him and is going to be
able to confirm or deny my assumptions with some authority, and
I know that I am almost certainly going to be right. Where do I
get the gumption to make such arguments? *From thinking things
through.*
Quarterbacks: No system needed to determine the proper angle and
speed when throwing the ball. He just knows from experience.
(Let me guess: The top quarterbacks know of such a system, but
they keep it top secret, right?)
Race car drivers: No system needed to know how far to depress the
accelerator when going through a turn. They just know from experience.
Bowlers: No system needed to know how where and how much English to
apply the ball. They have rolled the balls thousands of times. They
simply KNOW what to do. (If such a system exists, we would all be
bowling 250 within a few weeks because in bowling rolling the ball
with the right velocity and rotation is all there is.)
Tennis players: No system needed to know where to swing and how hard.
Consider the enormous amount of precision that tennis players must rely
on in order to succeed, yet the speed of the incoming ball wouldn't
allow them time to use a system even if they wanted to.
Baseball pitchers: No system needed to know when to release the ball.
How on Earth could such a system ever be devised in the first place?
(But wait, I am making one of those unfounded assumptions again. Darn
it!)
Darts: Ask a dart player what system he uses in order to know when to
release the dart. Yet, such a system does exist, because the
trajectory
of a dart is pretty well governed by simple kinematics. But no one
uses it, because the human brain can sense when to release the dart
from basic experience (feel) to much higher precision than it can
using the system.
In fact, I am unaware of a SINGLE sports activity yet requiring physical
dexterity
where systems are used. At least, not at the highest levels.
Can you think of one? I can't.
Why would pool be any different?
Furthermore, there is a very good reason why feel is superior to
any system, and I have detailed it many times. Yet, you continually
ignore it.
For the rest of you that want to try these systems out, go ahead. IMO,
unless you are beginner you are wasting your time (or maybe even
pissing your money away). THERE IS NO MAGIC
BULLET. It's NOT MY FAULT that there isn't. That's just the way it is.
To me, a pool player relying on a system is like a gambler who thinks
he can bust the casinos because he knows how to count cards.
John Walkup
>
> Sam,
> Actually John is pretty close to right about Gary. He shoots by feel and
> experience. He knows where the ball is supposed to go from having shot the shots
> over & over again. When he approaches a table he has a few banks he tries, to
> see if the balls are come up long or short. He then uses this feedback to zero
> in on how a particular table is playing, but from there its just feel! Damnedest
> thing I ever saw!!! I've seen him put Bugs Rucker in a coma, and anyone who know
> bank pool knows Bugs was the "real deal". I'd say the 4 best bankers of all
> times would be Eddie Taylor, Bugs Rucker, Gary Spaeth and Donnie Anderson and
> having seen all 4 play I'd say they ALL play by feel!
You don't say!! :)
Thomas Boerner
> Thomas:
>
> I don't understand. When you refer to "contact point" are you saying that
> you can judge the precise spot that the cueball has to strike the object
> ball in order to pocket the ball? If so, can you share with us how you make
> that determination for varying angles? I, for one, find it very difficult
> to figure out how to line up the cueball's contact point with the object
> ball's contact point. I think others have difficulty with this also which
> is why the ghost ball system is so useful.
Hmmm, the contact point method is about the same as the ghost ball method, I
think. You look for the contact point, imagine where the cueball has to travel
to hit it correctly, and shoot. But that's not exactly the way I do it. It's
hard to explain, because I don't think about aiming when playing, but I try: I
look for the contact point on the object ball, then I look for the contact point
on the cueball, then I bend down and shoot. I think it's really about the same
as the ghost ball method. I usually only look at the contact point on the object
ball, my mind automatically is doing the remaining procedure (I don't really
look for the contact point on the cueball).
I can't believe that anyone is really using a system on every shot. Just shoot,
your mind knows how to do it! And if not, then shoot more, your mind will
learn!! If you have to think about how to hit the right contact point you're not
able to concentrate on the real important things, like rhythm, position, speed.
You have to get a FEELING for what you are doing, not to calculate every shot!
Best regards, Thomas
halh...@webtv.net
strike each other when the cue ball and object ball are aligned in a
perfectly straight line. Aiming cue ball to object ball in a cut shot of
any degree, the 2 contact points cannot exactly meet because of the
surface curvature of the 2 spheres.
Now, if we instead use the inside edge of the cue stick as the contact
point on the cue ball to aim at the object ball contact point, and the 2
balls are in a straight line and the center of the stick is in the
center of the cue ball, then exactly as Pat Johnson suggested, the
object ball will leave the cue ball at roughly 15 degrees.
The problem comes when we get into other degrees of angles, and now it
is critical as to where we place that cue edge on the cue ball on any
shot, even more especially when the object ball is some distance from
the pocket.
The cue ball contact point must parallel the object ball contact point.
We all know how to locate the object ball contact point by drawing a a
line from the pocket out "through" the object ball. Then we draw a line
parallel to that line from the cushion "to" the cue ball to locate the
cue ball contact point. Now we aim to make these 2 points meet.
For any system, ball or stick, to work efficently, this parallel contact
point premise must be maintained on every shot regardless of any angle.
The cue edge would have to parallel the object ball contact point. Sorry
to burden you with this convoluted tale.Must be either the late hour or
my late age.
Regards, Hal
Neil Barsema
After Tom Simpson's post I finaly got it!
It's an aiming system to shoot with english!
So here is why I think It should work.
What the system does it makes you take account of the fact that you're not
hitting the cueball with the center of your tip when aplying English, but
with the (in)side.
This WOULD work for almost every shaft diameter but it limits the amount of
english to roughly one tip. so I guess its ok for LEARNING to shoot with
english.
(when your learning it's better not to take account of throw,squirt and what
have you)
However I agree totaly with John Walkup on his 'gut feel' theory.
I believe the brain is devided in specialized parts that interact with
eachother.
you have for instance a bit dedicated to walking, to recognizing faces, to
driving a car and one to play pool.
There is also a different part that is specialized in reasoning en 'rational
thought' the part that understands the 'systems' but it has nothing to do
with 'playing' pool.
It does play a part however in the training of the 'Pool brain'!
regards, Neil
Paul J. Mon
Excellent response and using those other sports analogies really drives
the point home. Your contention that only beginners would benefit may
be slightly off base, IMO. Even tops pros (in pool/golf/bowling) will
use an alignment system to insure proper execution. At their level of
proficiency it may appear like they are on "auto-pilot" or using gut
feel. But they still aim at targets. I've had the pleasurable
experience of bowling many hours of practice with pro bowlers. One of
them in particular commented on how he instincively corrected deviations
in his delivery at the last moment. I believe he was so conditioned to
the repetitiveness of his sport that his muscles had been trained to
make these minute corrections automatically, a synaptic response. It
must be similar to a zen experience. Regards............Paul Mon
Phat Mack
Snooker" by Joe Davis, first published in 1949. It's hard to find. He
gives beautifully written instructions for all the things you mention.
He accepts no variation on technique, but IMHO it is the best cue sport
instructional for beginners.
bp wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 16:45:13 -0500, Phat Mack <phat...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think most aiming is intuitive,
> A agree. I think EVERYBODY has the ability to see the point needed to
> make a shot and advanced player know what needs to be changed to make
> shots that need english. Where these systems fail is in the fact that
> aiming isn't the real problem.
> It is IMO:
> How you approach the table/shoot.
> How you bend over getting ready to shot.
> How you swing the cue.
> How you follow through.
> How you hit the cue ball
> etc etc
>
> Without all these (and some I'm sure I left out) NO system is every
> going to work, if you:
> Can't line up straight
> Can't bend over the shoot lined up.
> Can't bring the cue back straight
> Can't follow through straight
> Can't hit the Cue ball in the correct spot.
> etc etc
>
> How can a aiming system help these things ??
>
Jay
under Ferral System in Deja. Basically Bob says the same thing that JW is
saying. He talks about an article in P&B Magazine where they interviewed pros
about the aiming systems that they use. Half of them said they don't use a
system. Of the half that said they did use a system, the "explanations were
either bogus or incomprehensible, so my conclusion is that those players also
play by feel." Certainly not conclusive evidence, but pretty convincing I would
think.
sam wrote:
sam
thinking that on long shots, while I do determine a contact point many
times, that by the time I get down over the shot, I have mentally converted
that contact spot to a PERCENTAGE of the ball. In other words, 1/8, 1/4,
1/2, etc. The reason I think this, is because I'm pretty sure at this
distance, I can no longer SEE a CONTACT POINT. I don't know how to prove
this, but if it is true, then I am using one of Hal's systems without
realizing it. Just a thought. BTW, we have a guy here (Senior) who is
LEGALLY BLIND, but is a 6 in the APA. He is on vacation now, but when he
gets back, I am going to ask him how he aims. Betting he picks out a FUZZY
portion of the object ball and shoots at it. Sincerely, Sam
John Walkup wrote in message <37AFDD...@telepath.com>...
sam
because a Pro cannot explain the system, it does not mean that they are not
using it. We have tried numerous times to explain systems on this NG, and
most of us make a mess of it. These things can be very difficult to explain
when not face to face or over a pool table. Don't get me wrong. I think
most system shooters adjust the shot based on experience (throw, swerve,
etc). John, would say that we have abandoned the system and are shooting by
"feel". I say that the SYSTEM is still the BASIS for the shot, but we
modify the system to meet our objectives. I can make the shots they were
talking about with the inside of your stick pointed at the contact point of
the object ball all day long up to a certain angle. At this point, I know
that I must adjust (modify) the system. I don't have to abandon it, just
modify. Therefore, I would say that I am using the system (any system), but
occasionally modifying as necessary to meet my needs. John gives examples
of many sports and insists that these people are not using systems. Think
about it for a moment. Many pro bowlers have a BOARD system based on their
release of the ball. They are many times not even looking at the pins.
They modify which board (or arrow) they release to based upon the conditions
of the alley. Did they abandon their system or merely modify it to meet the
conditions at hand. Sincerely, Sam
Jay wrote in message <37B050EA...@ix.netcom.com>..
Jeffrey Weiss
"sam" <s...@lasercom.net> cracks up:
> Jeffrey, You crack me up. I can't run a Company and pay RETAIL for
> anything that would be considered INVENTORY. Does this make sense to you?
> Sincerely, Sam (going to start buying cues at retail and give a 10% Senior
> Discount. I know that I'll lose money, but I'm going to make it up in
> volume. Ha Ha)
So let's see... those 5 Sardo racks you were going to get at "dealer" cost and
share with four other people - are those considered INVENTORY also? Kind of a
virtual inventory, right? Real cyber-stuff. You're a lot more "hip" than you
led us to believe.
You crack me up, too, Ed.
--
jw (NYC)
sam
company wants me and other people to evaluate it, should I buy my first one
at RETAIL or should I buy 5 and find out the product is crap and be stuck
with them? OR should I call the company and find out if they care whether I
let the other 4 go at my cost so that I can at least get one to evaluate?
Hmm, let's see. Wow, choices, choices. Gee, I think I'll call the Company.
Sincerely, Sam (dialing as we speak)
Jeffrey Weiss wrote in message
<1999081016...@nhrmdc204.fw.gs.com>...
Jay
mean it's not true (sounds funny writing that...) but again based on my personal
experiences, not just with pool, but many, many different sports, games, ideas,
industries, etc. most people just say what they "think" is right or what they
were told without ever bothering to figure out if that is actually what is
happening. To give you another sports analogy (I don't consider pool a sport
myself, but that is another thread...) professional baseball players and the
announcers and sportswriters are many times quite ignorant about what makes a
player or team a good player or team. I don't want to go into a whole
dissertation on baseball, but there is a relatively new field of study called
sabremetrics. Sabremetricians study what is actually happening as opposed to
what their eyes tell them. Ask most baseball players/announcers/writers about
the effect of protection (where hitter A hits in front of hitter B and hitter A
gets better pitches to hit and therefore does better than he would without
hitter B behind him) and they will tell you yes it exists. The pitcher obviously
doesn't want to pitch to hitter B so they "go after hitter A" and he gets better
pitches to hit, blah, blah, blah... This idea sounds right but it's not. It just
doesn't exist. It may exist in a very, very small way. So small as to be
immeasureable. This is just one example. FYI, batting average and RBI are highly
overrated statistical measures. Of course, these are the ones that most writers
and announcers gush over. If you ever want to know what not to do as far as
strategy goes, in baseball, listen to Ray Knight. He has no clue.
Anyway, I guess what I am trying to say is just because someone (even a pro)
believes that they are doing things a certain way, that may not be the case. And
when the way that they say they are doing things doesn't stand up to the
scrutiny of physics/geometry/statistical law, then they are doing something
else. IMHO
sam
explained our entire conversation, which I invited her to read on the
internet. As a Billiard Supply Company she told me that I am allowed to
order 1 or 5 at the same DEALER pricing. I told her that I might order 5
and let 4 go at my cost so that we could get some feedback from around the
country. She thought this was a fine idea and commended me for not looking
for "Supplier Profit" on this new product, but rather being interested in
it's long term success. Since, the response from this group concerning the
product has been less than overwhelming, I will probably just order the ONE
and post my opinions and results. Jeffrey, I have enjoyed your comments.
If you knew me, you would know that I am .....Sincerely, Sam (BTW, you can
call me Ed, Skip, Asshole or anything you feel comfortable with. Please
don't call me Lover. That is reserved for my wife. Ha Ha)
John Walkup
>
> John, I wear glasses and have a corrected prescription of about 25/80. I am
> thinking that on long shots, while I do determine a contact point many
> times, that by the time I get down over the shot, I have mentally converted
> that contact spot to a PERCENTAGE of the ball. In other words, 1/8, 1/4,
> 1/2, etc. The reason I think this, is because I'm pretty sure at this
> distance, I can no longer SEE a CONTACT POINT.
This is pretty shaky evidence.
> I don't know how to prove
> this, but if it is true, then I am using one of Hal's systems without
> realizing it.
WHy do you limit yourself to those particular angles? After all,
only the half-ball cut is readily determined by looking at the two
balls. The others have to be guessed. There are no markers on
pool balls to tell you where half the diameter lies.
But the more obvious point is that you MUST be using more than the
stated angles, simply because some shots require intermediate angles
for the ball to fall. This can be proven geometrically, and
has been done so many times.
John Walkup
>
> Jay, Thanks for your input. You are right, it is FAR from conclusive. Just
> because a Pro cannot explain the system, it does not mean that they are not
> using it. We have tried numerous times to explain systems on this NG, and
> most of us make a mess of it. These things can be very difficult to explain
> when not face to face or over a pool table. Don't get me wrong. I think
> most system shooters adjust the shot based on experience (throw, swerve,
> etc). John, would say that we have abandoned the system and are shooting by
> "feel". I say that the SYSTEM is still the BASIS for the shot, but we
> modify the system to meet our objectives. I can make the shots they were
> talking about with the inside of your stick pointed at the contact point of
> the object ball all day long up to a certain angle. At this point, I know
> that I must adjust (modify) the system. I don't have to abandon it, just
> modify. Therefore, I would say that I am using the system (any system), but
> occasionally modifying as necessary to meet my needs. John gives examples
> of many sports and insists that these people are not using systems. Think
> about it for a moment. Many pro bowlers have a BOARD system based on their
> release of the ball. They are many times not even looking at the pins.
But that isn't anymore systematic then if they looked at the pins.
That is no different than looking at the cue ball instead of the object
ball when shooting. Besides, the boards would only tell them WHERE
to release the ball. They still have to have the right amount
of spin and velocity.
BTW, whenever I have seen the bowlers play they have always been
looking down the alley at the pins when they release. Are you SURE
they don't look at the pins?
sam
maybe 1/3, 1/2, maybe 2/3, 3/4, and 7/8 are FAIRLY easy to pick out. I am
going to take my glasses off this afternoon and see if I can still pick out
portions of the object ball. I know that it will be impossible to pick out
contact points. Also, I don't know what (if anything) this will prove, but
it will be a fun experiment. Sincerely, Sam
John Walkup wrote in message <37B085...@telepath.com>...
>> I don't know how to prove
>> this, but if it is true, then I am using one of Hal's systems without
>> realizing it.
>
>WHy do you limit yourself to those particular angles? After all,
>only the half-ball cut is readily determined by looking at the two
>balls. The others have to be guessed. There are no markers on
>pool balls to tell you where half the diameter lies.
>
>But the more obvious point is that you MUST be using more than the
>stated angles, simply because some shots require intermediate angles
>for the ball to fall. This can be proven geometrically, and
>has been done so many times.
>
JWhite
> BTW, whenever I have seen the bowlers play they have always been
> looking down the alley at the pins when they release. Are you SURE
> they don't look at the pins?
>
> --
> John Walkup The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
>
> Authorized Dealer: Verl Horn Cues Russ Espiritu Custom Cues
Only beginners.
--
Jim
Moori Tips? www.sebring.net/cuetime/
WCrimi
Every cue, table, cloth, set of balls (clean or dirty), weather condition
etc... will produce slightly different aiming requirements. The above are also
affected by english and speed of the cueball. No human can adjust his aiming
system to meet the requirements of this sort of complexity.
However, our internal computers (subconscious brains) can sort it all out after
maybe 30 minutes of practice on a table.
sam
I threw the balls on the table and started shooting. I could make the short
shots, but had trouble at first with the long ones. The method I used
because of my bad vision was simply seeing the cue ball as a whole sphere
being shot straight into the rail and then adjusting to a portion of the
ball for a given cut. My problem at first was that my right eye 300 could
not judge the edge of the cue ball when lining up for cuts to the right. I
would hit too fat or too thin from not being able to see or judge the edge
of the cue ball. As I worked with this very poor visual acuity, I began to
get used to hitting whatever portion of the ball was necessary to sink the
ball. I certainly could not see contact points. The balls in the distance
were not so much fuzzy as they were SMALL. Anyway, I'm sure I just proved
nothing but it was nice to know that if my vision gets worse, I will still
be able to sink balls. Sincerely, Sam
sam
straight into the rail...... Sorry. Sincerely, Sam
sam wrote in message <37b0...@news.compuvar.com>...
sam
not. I think they have the experience to modify as necessary, but I believe
the basis of their shot making is a system. Just my opinion. Sincerely,
Sam (I certainly think Grady Mathews is an example of this)
LMoss18701 wrote in message
<19990810224338...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>>Jay wrote in message <37B
>
>>Half of them said they don't use a
>>>system. Of the half that said they did use a system,
>snip
>
>HEY SAM,
>wanta make a WAGER where the PROS that did not use a" system were in the
>rankings, compared to the other half of the PROS that said they did use a"
>system"?? you know where my bet will be! HA!HA!
>
>LINDA MOSS
Ron205
>strike each other when the cue ball and object ball are aligned in a
>perfectly straight line. Aiming cue ball to object ball in a cut shot of
>surface curvature of the 2 spheres.
I guess this is a matter of the definition of "contact points". In these RSB
discussions, most of us call the "contact points" the points on the two balls
that touch each other when they collide. For a given cut angle, there is an
object ball contact point and there is a cue ball contact point.
>We all know how to locate the object ball contact point by drawing a a
>line from the pocket out "through" the object ball. Then we draw a line
>parallel to that line from the cushion "to" the cue ball to locate the
>cue ball contact point. Now we aim to make these 2 points meet.
I'm not sure where the "cushion" comes into this process.
There are several parts to the aiming process. The first is finding the object
ball contact point. Then you have to figure out how to hit the cue ball in
order to make it hit the object ball at that point. There are many methods for
this, and if they are "geometrically correct", they will all result in the same
thing, namely the ball going where it is supposed to. Some of these include
the "ghost ball" method, the various "double the distance" and "factor of two"
methods, the "railroad track" and the "tube" methods, and so on.
One might ask, if the ghostball method works, then why bother with all of these
other ones? The reason is that different players have different abilities.
Some can judge distances very well, others can judge angles well, others have
good 3D visualization abilities, and so on. I think that as long as the aiming
method is geometrically correct, the player should use whichever one works best
for him.
Some methods are not geometrically correct. These are sometimes taught because
they are "simpler" than one of the correct ones. These usually involve such
things as light reflections and such. I don't agree with this idea. Why teach
something to a beginner that he will have to unlearn a short time later? The
correct methods are simple enough, just teach them to begin with.
BTW, there are two ways to adjust for object ball throw. Some players like to
line up the shot (i.e. determine the contact point(s)) as if there were no
throw, and then adjust the aim point to account for throw. Others account for
the throw first, then determine the contact point on the object ball. I
personally prefer the latter approach.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron205
>you can judge the precise spot that the cueball has to strike the object
>ball in order to pocket the ball? If so, can you share with us how you
>make
>that determination for varying angles?
Players with good 3D visualization abilities can do this naturally. Others
need a way to turn the 3D problem into a simpler 2D or 1D problem. Here is a
short list of ways to do this that have been discussed in RSB before.
* Imagine the ghost ball sitting frozen to the object ball, then shoot the cue
ball so that it "replaces" the imaginary ghost ball. Elephant Balls sells some
"aim trainers" based on this principle. It is truely remarkable how well these
work for beginners. It lets them "see" where the cue ball is supposed to go.
* From the cue ball's perspective, measure the distance from the outside edge
of the object ball to the object ball contact point. Double that distance, and
find the point on the equator of the object ball that corresponds to that
doubled distance. Then shoot the cue ball along a line such that the inside
edge of the cue ball lines up with that doubled-distance-point.
* From the cue ball's perspective, measure the distance from the object ball
center to the contact point. Double that distance and find the corresponding
spot on the object ball. Then shoot the cue ball so that it's center goes
directly toward the doubled-distance-point.
* Imagine the ghost ball, then draw two imaginary lines from the edges of the
ghost ball to the edges of the cue ball. Think of these lines as "railroad
tracks". Then shoot the cue ball down these tracks. I think this works for
people who like to concentrate on the initial cue ball path rather than the
eventual cue ball position. Sort of like focusing on the cue ball last rather
than the object ball last.
* Imagine the ghost ball, then construct an imaginary tube connecting the ghost
ball and the cue ball. Shoot the cue ball down the tube. Some people like
this better than the railroad track idea.
>I, for one, find it very difficult
>to figure out how to line up the cueball's contact point with the object
>ball's contact point. I think others have difficulty with this also which
>is why the ghost ball system is so useful.
Players should use a method that uses their abilities the best way. If someone
has good 3D visualization abilities, then they can just do this naturally, or
they may use the "tube" method or something. If someone can judge distances
very accurately, then they will probably prefer the "double the distance" types
of methods.
However, whatever you do, don't get stuck using, or teaching, an aiming method
that dictates where the stick is pointed during the shot. Such methods hamper
the ability to use varying amounts of sidespin, which is important for cue ball
control. After all, the game is not just about making shots.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
gide...@my-deja.com
methods.
> * From the cue ball's perspective, measure the distance from the
>outside edge
> of the object ball to the object ball contact point.
I know what the contact point is, but what outside edge are you
measuring it against? Do you mean the point opposite the contact point?
>Double that distance, and
> find the point on the equator of the object ball that corresponds to
> that doubled distance.
I don't understand where this is, maybe because of my earlier problem.
If it is the opposite of the contact point that is your reference,
doesn't double the distance take you to the outside edge of where the
"ghost ball" would be?
> Then shoot the cue ball along a line such that the inside
> edge of the cue ball lines up with that doubled-distance-point.
Now on my reading I'm missing entirely. HELP!
>
> * From the cue ball's perspective, measure the distance from the
> object ball center to the contact point.
ok
> Double that distance and find the corresponding
> spot on the object ball. Then shoot the cue ball so that it's center
> goes directly toward the doubled-distance-point.
I THINK I get this one, except that the "corresponding spot on the
object ball" is actually 1/2 a ball off the edge of the object ball.
Did I get that one right?
More confused than usual,
Gideon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
CrWW
>From: "Ken Bour" kb...@erols.com
>Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 01:02 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7oobpg$o1k$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>
>
>Thomas:
>
>I don't understand. When you refer to "contact point" are you saying that
>you can judge the precise spot that the cueball has to strike the object
>ball in order to pocket the ball? If so, can you share with us how you make
>to figure out how to line up the cueball's contact point with the object
>ball's contact point. I think others have difficulty with this also which
>is why the ghost ball system is so useful.
>
>Ken Bour
>Sterling, VA
>http://www.erols.com/kbour
>
I'll try to explain how I was taught
Visualize the line through the object ball to the desired destination. The
point on the near side of the object ball is the contact point. If you now
visualize a parallel line through the cue ball center, the point on the far
side of the cue ball is the desired contact point. Connect the two contact
points and the ball goes in the hole. Another helpful variations is to
visualize the offset of the contact point on the cue ball from the line from
the center of the cue ball to the contact point on the object ball. Now offst
your aiming point by that amount. For example, If I estimate that the
perpendicular distance from contact point on the cue ball to the center ball
aiming line is 1/2 in. then I adjust my aiming point on the object ball by 1/2
inch. from the contact point and shoot the center through this new aiming
point. I think this is one of those harder to explain than to do type of
things. ( try describing how to tie your shoe laces to see what I mean.) Hope
this helps a little. One final thought, adjust for throw on aiming line
determing the contact point on the object ball and adust for swerve and squirt
on the object ball aiming line.
Craig
JoeyA
shoulder.
Joey
John Walkup wrote in message <37AE85...@telepath.com>...
>Ken Bour wrote:
>>
>> Dave:
>>
>> None of my questions were answered after watching the tape several times.
I
>> even showed it to an engineer friend who is a skilled pool player. We
both
>> worked on it for awhile, making sure that we were both applying the ideas
>> correctly. Neither one of us could make the system work even for
relatively
>> shallow angles without dramatically swerving the cuestick or striking so
>> hard with expreme sidespin that we squirted the cueball sufficiently to
>> force the proper angle.
>
>Or simply cheating the system a little. If you really want the
>system to work, you can even cheat and not know it. Amazing, but
>true.
>
>> My friend has drawn several diagrams with balls, lines, angles, etc., to
>> demonstrate that this system cannot work for certain wider angles (e.g.
at
>> 60 deg. it's not even in the ballpark). He's in the process of
attempting
>> to define the limits within which it will work. I will post these
>> Powerpoint graphics on my web site for anyone interested. I would do it
>> directly to RSB, but I don't know how to draw circles accurately in ASCII
>> text.
>
>You're wasting your time, since some in this newsgroup don't even
>believe in the laws of simple trigonometry and geometry. The Houle
>method
>relies on the (ahem) "fact" that the arctan(1/2) is 30 degrees. (!)
>
>> The fact that 299 people wrote to you saying that the "system" works for
>> them is not explanation or justification, only testimonial.
>
>Testimonials rank at the very bottom when it comes to credibility.
>In fact, I have a device for leaching radioactive salt into water for
>drinking, and this device has a Helluva' lot more testimonials
>than any pool tape. Care for a drink? :)
>
>BTW, the proper word is "hearsay" until someone verifies that these
>people
>actually made these statements.
>
>Speaking of testimonials, we haven't heard from Sam lately on how
>placing magnets all over his body cures his back aches.
>
>--
>John Walkup
LMoss18701
Patrick Johnson
> there are two ways to adjust for object ball throw. Some players
> like to line up the shot (i.e. determine the contact point(s)) as
> if there were no throw, and then adjust the aim point to account
> contact point on the object ball. I personally prefer the latter
> approach.
I'm guessing what you mean by "account for throw first" is aim the
object ball at an adjusted target a certain number of degrees from the
intended target. I like this method, too. You can be more accurate
finding the correct contact point this way because you estimate the
angle displacement over a greater radius (from object ball center to the
target vs. from object ball center to its surface), and the results can
be compared directly with your estimate for more accurate feedback.
Also, you do it in one step rather than two.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Tom Simpson
<bar...@dds.nl> wrote:
::After Tom Simpson's post I finaly got it!
::It's an aiming system to shoot with english!
::
::What the system does it makes you take account of the fact that you're not
::hitting the cueball with the center of your tip when aplying English, but
::with the (in)side.
::This WOULD work for almost every shaft diameter but it limits the amount of
::english to roughly one tip.
:: regards, Neil
Why do you think this system limits the amount of english to
one tip? I don't think it does.
Shaft diameter (within reason) won't matter either, since
we're using the edge of the shaft for alignment, and hitting
with that same tip edge.
tom simpson
Ron205
>>outside edge
>> of the object ball to the object ball contact point.
>
>I know what the contact point is, but what outside edge are you
>measuring it against? Do you mean the point opposite the contact point?
If you are cutting the ball to the left, the "outside edge" is on the right.
[I don't know, it made sense when I wrote it ;-)]
>> Then shoot the cue ball along a line such that the inside
>> edge of the cue ball lines up with that doubled-distance-point.
>
>Now on my reading I'm missing entirely. HELP!
I guess I should have said that the distance is measured from the outside edge
of the object ball. If you are cutting the ball to the left, then the "inside
edge" of the cue ball is on the left.
If you just draw two circles that touch each other, it is obvious why these
"double the distance" methods work. Another similar aiming method is based on
the fact that there is as much object ball to one side of the contact point is
there is cue ball on the other.
>> Double that distance and find the corresponding
>> spot on the object ball. Then shoot the cue ball so that it's center
>> goes directly toward the doubled-distance-point.
>
>I THINK I get this one, except that the "corresponding spot on the
>object ball" is actually 1/2 a ball off the edge of the object ball.
>Did I get that one right?
For anything straighter than a half-ball hit, the doubled-distance spot is
still on the object ball. For thinner cuts, it will be off to the side of the
object ball. This spot is directly "behind" the ghostball center, of course,
but it can be found without having to visualize the 3D ghostball.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
thef...@my-deja.com
> : Hi everyone, I am Dave Mullen, the creator of the "Ultimate Aiming
> : System" video.
>> Would you be willing to describe how your system works?
>
> I can understand why you would not be willing to since you are still
selling
> the tapes.
I'm only reading a few of these posts from selected contributors,
but since Bob J. asked in the 92nd of 93 posts just what your system
is, apparently you haven't divulged that little tid-bit yet. Bob puts
it down to the possiblity that you're still selling the tapes, and I
guess he figures it might be unfair to those that've bought it for you
to present it here. I put it down to a desire to sell more videos via
some free advertising. Either way, why comment on the video? I'd
rather comment on your ideas. There just ain't enough folks on these
two NG's to much any difference one way or the other as far as your
video sales go, so...what's your 'system'?
BTW, Dave. Until your video is picked up by some library in my area,
I'll not see it. Reason? I've seen so many pool videos that were just
like the last pool video that there ain't no way I'm gonna BUY one
just 'cause it happens to be the LATEST one.
Finney
John Walkup
>
> Don't knock those magnets. That is what I am going to try next on my
> shoulder.
> Joey
I'm in the wrong business. :)
John Walkup
>
> John, I am not intentionally limiting myself. It just seems like 1/8, 1/4,
> maybe 1/3, 1/2, maybe 2/3, 3/4, and 7/8 are FAIRLY easy to pick out.
Then there is nothing wrong with your eyesight. (I thought I could,
but when I ran my own Houle test it turned out to be a lot more
difficult than I thought. Essentially, I had to use a striped ball
and place it so that the stripe was vertical. I then aimed at the
edge of the stripe. I still had to correct for parallax, which
is not insignificant. With a solid I have no idea what I would do.)
Of course, you have verified the fact that the 1/4 hit you pick out is
really a 1/4 hit, right? (I thought not.)
--
John Walkup
John Walkup
>
> snipped
>
> > BTW, whenever I have seen the bowlers play they have always been
> > looking down the alley at the pins when they release. Are you SURE
> > they don't look at the pins?
> >
> > John Walkup The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
> >
> > Authorized Dealer: Verl Horn Cues Russ Espiritu Custom Cues
>
Only beginners what?
John Walkup
Yep. I would love to know how the Houle method and Dave's method
account for these factors.
John Walkup
>
> John, I took my glasses off this afternoon and was left with 70/300 vision.
> I threw the balls on the table and started shooting. I could make the short
> shots, but had trouble at first with the long ones. The method I used
> because of my bad vision was simply seeing the cue ball as a whole sphere
> being shot straight into the rail and then adjusting to a portion of the
> ball for a given cut. My problem at first was that my right eye 300 could
> not judge the edge of the cue ball when lining up for cuts to the right. I
> would hit too fat or too thin from not being able to see or judge the edge
> of the cue ball. As I worked with this very poor visual acuity, I began to
> get used to hitting whatever portion of the ball was necessary to sink the
> ball.
How do you judge the portion if you can't see the edge? (If you can
discern
the edge, why can't you discern the contact point?)
> I certainly could not see contact points. The balls in the distance
> were not so much fuzzy as they were SMALL. Anyway, I'm sure I just proved
> nothing but it was nice to know that if my vision gets worse, I will still
> be able to sink balls. Sincerely, Sam
Okay, time for a correction: The Houle method is fine for beginners
and the blind.
--
John Walkup
John Walkup
>
> >Subject: Re: Ultimate Aiming System
> >From: "Ken Bour" kb...@erols.com
> >Date: Tue, 10 August 1999 01:02 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <7oobpg$o1k$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>
> >
> >Thomas:
> >
> >I don't understand. When you refer to "contact point" are you saying that
> >you can judge the precise spot that the cueball has to strike the object
> >ball in order to pocket the ball? If so, can you share with us how you make
> >that determination for varying angles? I, for one, find it very difficult
> >to figure out how to line up the cueball's contact point with the object
> >ball's contact point. I think others have difficulty with this also which
> >is why the ghost ball system is so useful.
> >
> >--
> >Ken Bour
> >Sterling, VA
> >http://www.erols.com/kbour
> >
>
> I'll try to explain how I was taught
>
> Visualize the line through the object ball to the desired destination. The
> point on the near side of the object ball is the contact point. If you now
> visualize a parallel line through the cue ball center, the point on the far
Isn't this just the ghost method?
--
John Walkup