Example. You without the knowledge of better angle shots vs you with the knowledge of better angle shots.
Are you telling me that if 2 people have the exact knowledge of aim the one who sets up better (high percentage) shots isn't going to do better?
I understand what you saying about people like Hoagi. I acknowledge there are people with zero knowledge of anything but flying directly at a red guy and running directly from the next. But his aim will never get better, until he puts himself in positions for higher percentage shots or...he ups a 410 and goes buff hunting.
It seems to me that you're attempting to split aiming and flying; at a certain point, they become one in the same. There really isn't such a thing as "someone with poor aim but good shot setup." The players that only go for high percentage shots are simply that, players who go for high percentage shots. It's not indicative of aim any more than low percentage shots. What's indicative of good aim is someone who can consistently engage from a neutral position, achieve a guns solution, and connect the shot. Consider those factors, and you realize it automatically rules out a majority of players we've discussed previously.
Hit percentage, as measured in AH, is absolutely worthless for measuring a pilot's aiming ability (that's one of the reasons I believe it should be dropped as a ranking factor, but that's an entirely different discussion). A better indicator of aiming ability is kills per hour coupled with K/D. Someone with poor accuracy will rarely ever be able to break the 6-8 kill per hour mark (and even then, that's a fairly low bar to set). That doesn't mean everyone who breaks that threshold is a good shot, it's simply a starting point (and certainly some poor players still appear to have good accuracy).
