Revolutionary New Aiming System !

Colin Colenso

Colin Colenso

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It's ok, I'm not selling anything :D

And it's really not that revolutionary, but as far as I'm aware I've added a new and useful twist to an aim system which is similar to Joe Tucker's contact point to contact point system. Based on the same principles anyway.

I was playing today and trying a few systems that had been recommended to me, and I decided to try out the contact point to contact point system. I actually found it to be far more intuitive than I had imagined. On most of my cut shots I had basically been observing the lines in much the same way anyway, though without the coscious recognition that I was aligning contact points.

Anyway, with just a couple of hours practice the system really improved a lot of shots I have struggled with.

It also completely re-arranged the way I have bee aligning some of my favorite reliable shots such as those with low OE near rails. I may have to erase my memory databases on these old alignment methods to incorporate this new method for all shots.

Anyway...into the aiming system details:

Pros: Technically accurate in terms of physics for all angles and lengths, such as the ghost ball, but easier to find the points to align.

No need to visualize actual hidden point on CB, can extrapolate to front face and visualize and actual line between two visable points.

Here is a diagram...then some more details and some Q&A.
 

Attachments

  • Contact to Contact.JPG
    Contact to Contact.JPG
    26.8 KB · Views: 1,391
Colin Colenso said:
It's ok, I'm not selling anything :D

And it's really not that revolutionary, but as far as I'm aware I've added a new and useful twist to an aim system which is similar to Joe Tucker's contact point to contact point system. Based on the same principles anyway.

I was playing today and trying a few systems that had been recommended to me, and I decided to try out the contact point to contact point system. I actually found it to be far more intuitive than I had imagined. On most of my cut shots I had basically been observing the lines in much the same way anyway, though without the coscious recognition that I was aligning contact points.

Anyway, with just a couple of hours practice the system really improved a lot of shots I have struggled with.

It also completely re-arranged the way I have bee aligning some of my favorite reliable shots such as those with low OE near rails. I may have to erase my memory databases on these old alignment methods to incorporate this new method for all shots.

Anyway...into the aiming system details:

Pros: Technically accurate in terms of physics for all angles and lengths, such as the ghost ball, but easier to find the points to align.

No need to visualize actual hidden point on CB, can extrapolate to front face and visualize and actual line between two visable points.

Here is a diagram...then some more details and some Q&A.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not certain about the consistent effectiveness of what you're doing...but I'm hardly believing my eyes as to the fact you're now into aiming systems instead of debunking them and saying you aim through feel. It just warms the cockles of my heart.

I think I have to place this as my single greatest accomplishment in all my years of posting on forums...I'VE ACTUALLY BROKEN THROUGH TO SOMEONE!!
 
Colin Colenso said:
It's ok, I'm not selling anything :D

And it's really not that revolutionary, but as far as I'm aware I've added a new and useful twist to an aim system which is similar to Joe Tucker's contact point to contact point system. Based on the same principles anyway.
Click to expand...
LOL. That's two guys (jsp and Colin Colenso) that came up with a twist on Joe Tucker's system. Tucker's really is as easy as it gets to describe the geometrically-correct system. His training balls are numbered so that you don't have to guess.

Fred
 
How did this guy make the IPT 150? I know there is no good reason for me saying this, but it really is an embrassment to the game to allow some of these people play with professionals. I know this will eventually be sorted out but just had to speak my two cents. BTW maybe we should loosen up those pockets for Bernie?? WTF??
 
Nice way to look at it Colin! I like your system better because you have a much prettier drawing (I was about to say "figure", but thought twice) than me. What program do you use to draw your figures? I just use the drawing tools in MSWord. :rolleyes:
 
EasyMoney said:
How did this guy make the IPT 150? I know there is no good reason for me saying this, but it really is an embrassment to the game to allow some of these people play with professionals. I know this will eventually be sorted out but just had to speak my two cents. BTW maybe we should loosen up those pockets for Bernie?? WTF??
Click to expand...
I have a name EasyMoney. Better you talk to me directly than to act in such a condescending manner.

I've answered questions regarding my entry to those who've asked. I don't want to keep having to do so. I have posted here for a long time before the IPT and plan to do so well after.

Perhaps you're insunuating that such aiming systems are known by all pros, or that pros have no interest in aiming systems. What exactly is your criticism?

The post was made to discuss a topic some of us here find interesting. The name of the thread was made in jest to some degree. Lighten up!
 
jsp said:
Nice way to look at it Colin! I like your system better because you have a much prettier drawing (I was about to say "figure", but thought twice) than me. What program do you use to draw your figures? I just use the drawing tools in MSWord. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I print the screen from DDD Pool, a game software. In the game you can zoom in and alter the viewing angle.

After that I just added a few lines in paintbrush.

Looks cool eh....I just thought of doing it that way :D
 
Colin,
Excellent system, but actually has been described by others before you. C.J. Wiley has used this system for years - simple, elegant, accurate - explained in detail in his 2-video set that came out a few years ago. Though I'm not a big fan of those video's there were some excellent tidbits, and the aiming system is one of them - especially for very thin cuts.

P.S. - Let us know when your new invention for a horse-less carriage gets whipped into shape.

P.P.S. - you know I'm just kidding.
 
been there, done that. my problem with that system is that i ALWAYS overcut. i think this is because one doesn't normally think about the convergence of lines due to far perspective,,,,and that's when contact to contact becomes intuitive, because you have to make up for converging lines.

the way i use contact to contact is to see the line twixt the two points. this works for me because one of my aiming problems has always been cue alignment.
 
drivermaker said:
Well, I'm not certain about the consistent effectiveness of what you're doing...but I'm hardly believing my eyes as to the fact you're now into aiming systems instead of debunking them and saying you aim through feel. It just warms the cockles of my heart.

I think I have to place this as my single greatest accomplishment in all my years of posting on forums...I'VE ACTUALLY BROKEN THROUGH TO SOMEONE!!
Click to expand...
Regardless of the aiming system, there is still a lot of Intuitive Judgment (IJ) in actually getting the cue on line and parallel to the yellow line, with bridge in the correct position etc. It certainly doesn't just fall into place.

It does seem to me a system worth working on, as a change to just IJing a line as I am used to, perceiving a CB line to the OB and the OB line to the pocket.

Having not practiced hard and long recently as I used to, my old IJ system is a bit rough around the edges. Seems as good a time as any to start over with something new. Reprogram myself as you may.
 
Williebetmore said:
Colin,
Excellent system, but actually has been described by others before you. C.J. Wiley has used this system for years - simple, elegant, accurate - explained in detail in his 2-video set that came out a few years ago. Though I'm not a big fan of those video's there were some excellent tidbits, and the aiming system is one of them - especially for very thin cuts.

P.S. - Let us know when your new invention for a horse-less carriage gets whipped into shape.

P.P.S. - you know I'm just kidding.
Click to expand...
haha, how about my portable bread cooker?

I hadn't seen anyone do the mirror of CB1 to make CB2 before ( a visible point in the contact to contact line), but then again, I haven't been fortunate enough to have access to many of the training systems the US sees.

In the snooker world of literature and training, there is nothing close to these type of aiming systems and physics analysis. Most of us learned by trial and error.
 
Cornerman said:
LOL. That's two guys (jsp and Colin Colenso) that came up with a twist on Joe Tucker's system. Tucker's really is as easy as it gets to describe the geometrically-correct system. His training balls are numbered so that you don't have to guess.

Fred
Click to expand...
Fred,
Can you further discuss the system you mentioned here a couple of months ago, and perhaps give comparisons to the diagram I provided.

I think I recall you saying you actually line up the cue through a point to the side of the CB to the contact point. (You use 3 points for various angles). And then you pivot the cue to where you want it on the CB.

Close?
 
Colin Colenso said:
Regardless of the aiming system, there is still a lot of Intuitive Judgment (IJ) in actually getting the cue on line and parallel to the yellow line, with bridge in the correct position etc. It certainly doesn't just fall into place.
Click to expand...


I guess if one were to only use the aiming method that you provided with yellow lines and parallel setups then intuition would be involved. But here again...it's just a secondary aiming system to the original called, "The Swami Aiming System". Which also leads me to believe that women would be MUCH MORE effective with it than men since they possess greater intuition.

There are other ways of aiming that don't require intuition...they're pretty straight forward in how to do them. Obviously, you aren't familiar with them or still tend to debunk anything that you can't describe geometrically. Too bad....
 
Colin Colenso said:
I hadn't seen anyone do the mirror of CB1 to make CB2 before ( a visible point in the contact to contact line), but then again, I haven't been fortunate enough to have access to many of the training systems the US sees.
Click to expand...
If you do a search for Joe Tucker's Aiming, you'll find that his training balls are setup with mirrored numbers. I think it's fascinating that you've come up with the same system without previous knowledge.


Fred,
Can you further discuss the system you mentioned here a couple of months ago, and perhaps give comparisons to the diagram I provided.

I think I recall you saying you actually line up the cue through a point to the side of the CB to the contact point. (You use 3 points for various angles). And then you pivot the cue to where you want it on the CB.

Close?
Click to expand...

You suck. Actually, I suck. Can I even search for those posts anymore???

It reads like you've got it. In a nutshell, if I have a cut to the right, I align my cuestick on the right side of the cueball, and point it directly at the contact point of the object ball. I then pivot using my backhand to the center of the cueball for center ball shots, and I pivot to whatever english for english shots.

My starting alignment offset is basically based on the amount of cut. For zero cut, my offset is zero. For super thin, my offset is all the way to the edge. For angles in between, I guess. But, to keep things finite, for 1/2 ball cuts, I offset halfway. For narrow cuts, I offset about 1/4 from the center. And for thin cuts, I offset 3/4. So, I have three finite offsets for normal cuts, no offsets for straight shots, and one super offset for super thin shots.

Now, here's the funny thing... or not so funny..., if everyone tried the super thin offset one, I think they'd be pleasantly surprised how much their super thin cuts make percentage increases.

Also, when the ball are really close, I think this is where it helps trememendously as I can't see angles well when the balls are close.

Fred

P.S. Hal Houle does have a pivot alignment for dead straight shots, but he'll need to show me it in person because even in our discussions, I think I'm missing something.
 
drivermaker said:
I guess if one were to only use the aiming method that you provided with yellow lines and parallel setups then intuition would be involved. But here again...it's just a secondary aiming system to the original called, "The Swami Aiming System". Which also leads me to believe that women would be MUCH MORE effective with it than men since they possess greater intuition.

There are other ways of aiming that don't require intuition...they're pretty straight forward in how to do them. Obviously, you aren't familiar with them or still tend to debunk anything that you can't describe geometrically. Too bad....
Click to expand...
Sure, alining down a gun site doesn't require IJ. Maybe I better close one eye. I'm having problems with working out the line of my dominant eye. Took me 20 minutes of warming up today and still it was on and off a bit.

Give me a try...I'm your open eared disciple :D
 
Cornerman said:
If you do a search for Joe Tucker's Aiming, you'll find that his training balls are setup with mirrored numbers. I think it's fascinating that you've come up with the same system without previous knowledge.




You suck. Actually, I suck. Can I even search for those posts anymore???

It reads like you've got it. In a nutshell, if I have a cut to the right, I align my cuestick on the right side of the cueball, and point it directly at the contact point of the object ball. I then pivot using my backhand to the center of the cueball for center ball shots, and I pivot to whatever english for english shots.

My starting alignment offset is basically based on the amount of cut. For zero cut, my offset is zero. For super thin, my offset is all the way to the edge. For angles in between, I guess. But, to keep things finite, for 1/2 ball cuts, I offset halfway. For narrow cuts, I offset about 1/4 from the center. And for thin cuts, I offset 3/4. So, I have three finite offsets for normal cuts, no offsets for straight shots, and one super offset for super thin shots.

Now, here's the funny thing... or not so funny..., if everyone tried the super thin offset one, I think they'd be pleasantly surprised how much their super thin cuts make percentage increases.

Also, when the ball are really close, I think this is where it helps trememendously as I can't see angles well when the balls are close.

Fred

P.S. Hal Houle does have a pivot alignment for dead straight shots, but he'll need to show me it in person because even in our discussions, I think I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
Thanks Fred,
I'm taking out my compass and rulers now to see what I missed the first time :p

What really makes it hard to fathom sometimes with these aiming systems, is that even on the basic straight shot where we know exactly what to align to what, it can still be a hell of a task to deliver the CB to the right spot.

Hard to imagine how a pivot system could improve upon this. But I'll keep an open mind.
 
Colin Colenso said:
Sure, alining down a gun site doesn't require IJ. Maybe I better close one eye. I'm having problems with working out the line of my dominant eye. Took me 20 minutes of warming up today and still it was on and off a bit.

Give me a try...I'm your open eared disciple :D
Click to expand...


I defer all teaching to Fred. He has more patience than I do...btw, he just posted it in a nutshell. Doesn't get any better than that.
 
Colin Colenso said:
haha, how about my portable bread cooker?

I hadn't seen anyone do the mirror of CB1 to make CB2 before ( a visible point in the contact to contact line), but then again, I haven't been fortunate enough to have access to many of the training systems the US sees.

In the snooker world of literature and training, there is nothing close to these type of aiming systems and physics analysis. Most of us learned by trial and error.
Click to expand...

That's not quite right. I remember reading a few snooker instructionals that described a few aiming systems. One that sticks out most is the covering method, which is to use the cueball to cover a portion of the object ball.

Maybe there isn't the depth of discussion that we have on the pool boards but there are definitely some aiming systems being taught in the snooker world.

John
 
Colin Colenso said:
It's ok, I'm not selling anything :D

And it's really not that revolutionary, but as far as I'm aware I've added a new and useful twist to an aim system which is similar to Joe Tucker's contact point to contact point system. Based on the same principles anyway.

I was playing today and trying a few systems that had been recommended to me, and I decided to try out the contact point to contact point system. I actually found it to be far more intuitive than I had imagined. On most of my cut shots I had basically been observing the lines in much the same way anyway, though without the coscious recognition that I was aligning contact points.

Anyway, with just a couple of hours practice the system really improved a lot of shots I have struggled with.

It also completely re-arranged the way I have bee aligning some of my favorite reliable shots such as those with low OE near rails. I may have to erase my memory databases on these old alignment methods to incorporate this new method for all shots.

Anyway...into the aiming system details:

Pros: Technically accurate in terms of physics for all angles and lengths, such as the ghost ball, but easier to find the points to align.

No need to visualize actual hidden point on CB, can extrapolate to front face and visualize and actual line between two visable points.

Here is a diagram...then some more details and some Q&A.
Click to expand...

I am surprised no one els has mentioned this..Perhaps they have and I just missed it in my "catch up" of this thread...but....did you notice how the green line shows a center CB to 1/4 OB aim alingment? ...I have heard that some guy came up with a system based on that type of aiming somewhere....

Colin...If you did do that on purpose, very nice job of showing how an alingment point and a actual contact point could be two different things.....You may have been the first person to create a graphic that shows an easily understandable graphic of the HH system....Now delete it before the whole world figures out how easy it really is to pocket balls.......now if only I had a stroke to go with the alignment.... :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top