Re: Aiming Theory Questions

Mr. Crimi's advice is excellent and wise.  I think we are fascinated
by the prospect of this or that aiming system being our magic pill to
transport us to the next level.  The learn by doing over and over
through well ordered practice is probably the best method.  Over the
years, many of the great players I have seen could not communicate
their methods to save their lives but produced results that could be
objectively described as symphonic artistry on a pool table.  Of
course, the more we know about the physics of pool, the better we are
able to make the adjustments for the variables; and, as a true fan of
the game I like learning about these things.  By the way, the
difficulty and preciseness of pool is probably its main attraction -
is for me.

"dalecue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> wayne crimi wrote in message ...
> >If I were you, in addition to trying to formulate an aiming system, I would
> >practice various simple shot angles with a center cue ball hit over and
>  over
> >until you just "see the angle".  Then I would slowly advance the
>  difficulty.
> >
> >That may seem like very simple advice, but game and equipment conditions
> >like cloth type, cloth nap, weather/humidity, clean/dirty balls, English,
> >and other factors impact the results. So if you only go down the path of an
> >"aiming system" you are then going to have to adjust your system from shot
> >to shot, day to day, table to table etc.... to compensate for the
>  conditions
> >and specifics of the shot. IMO, that adds a lot of complexity that is
> >difficult to deal with under game conditions as opposed to conversation on
> >paper. If you take "both" paths, after awhile you will simply "see, feel,
> >and know" where to hit the object ball. Plus, you will understand it.
> 
> as good a piece of advice as you will ever get
> 
> Dale
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >"Shem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Yes, Pat, that's completely true.  It's honestly not a matter of "suit
> >> myself", its just how I think I guess.
> >>
> >> Take a look at the diagram I posted on my other post on this thread
> >> showing a half ball hit.  I'm curious what you think.  By what you are
> >> saying, its isnt really a half ball hit.  I guess I was just thinking
> >> about it the wrong way.  In either case, the system really doesnt work
> >> for me, and I'll take a look at some of the ones you suggested.
> >>
> >> Again, thanks for the feedback.  I've trolled this board for awhile,
> >> and always enjoy the Johnson/Jewett/Shepard posts.
> >>
> >> Patrick Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> > Shem wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I think about the cut angle in the following way: Draw a line between
> >> > > the cue ball and the object ball centers (before the shot), extending
> >> > > the line beyond the OB.  The cut angle, at least the way I think of
> >> > > it, is the deviation of the OB from that line.
> >> >
> >> > Suit yourself, but it's much more useful and common to think of it as
> >> > the angle from the CB's path (or the "aim line"), since that produces
> >> > constant, predictable angles.  In fact, it's the only way your
> >> > instructor's system (a very common one) makes any sense.
> >> >
> >> > Pat Johnson
> >> > Chicago
> >
> >