Re: Aiming Theory Questions

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shem) wrote:

> I recently starting using the ghostball method of aiming (after
> sort of giving up on system discussed on this thread), visualizing a
> ghost ball and using my cue to aim to the middle of the ghost ball.  I
> found it helped my shot consistency significantly.  Is there a reason
> not to use this method?  What is it that makes you not recomend it?

It works great for some people, but not everyone has the 3D 
visualization talent to use it.  Some people use it for some shots, 
but not others (e.g. very thin cuts seem to be a common exception).

However, for any aiming method to work correctly for all shots, it 
must be geometrically equivalent to the ghost ball aiming method.  
There are many of these, and when you learn of a new aiming method, 
it is often instructive to figure out if it is a correct one or not.

There are several "double the distance" and "split the difference" 
kinds of methods that are geometrically correct and require, instead 
of 3D visualization, accurate estimation of distances.

Every player, no matter how long he has played, will eventually find 
himself needing to make an important shot, and when he walks up to 
the table he can't see where he needs to hit the ball.  It could be 
nerves, fatigue, alcohol, a headache, or other distractions, who 
knows?  When this happens, it is at least a little comforting to 
know how to use one of the systems to make the shot, or at least to 
get a reliable "second opinion" on where the object ball needs to be 
hit.

$.02 -Ron Shepard