Bottom of ball aiming

[3RAILKICK]

Not sure I get it....

So-wild guess/questions

Is looking at the bottom of the OB a better visual reference sighting at that bottom edge point?

I'm visualizing the contact point on the OB has a superimposed visable vertical line through it that goes through the bottom edge to the cloth?

Then aim as you do, to hit the contact point.



ps: I like aiming with tip on cloth at center cb spot. Helps me see overlap/eclipse. Adjust from there.



Regardless..congratulations to OP for finding something that works for you and sounds like will get you out shooting more often. Have fun.

 

[Cornerman]

THANKS Cornerman...but no confusion. My post you copied wasn't directed to the OP but specifically quoted another poster.

My only confusion is that my question hasn't yet been answered directly...which is...does the OP...or anyone else AIM AT the lowest visible point of the OB....or not?

Pretty basic question and pretty key to understanding the point of this thread.

You said you completely understood what was being proposed, so possibly you can help. Do people AIM AT the lowest visible portion of the ball?

(-:

EagleMan

Your a bit too tough to answer since it seems your asking one thing that has little to do with the OP and therefore the thread. I'll just assume you don't understand the OP.

I'll pass.

Freddie <~~~ it was straightforward

 

[Cornerman]

Not sure I get it....

So-wild guess/questions

Is looking at the bottom of the OB a better visual reference sighting at that bottom edge point?

.

For me it is.. In my particular aiming method, the highest I reference the object ball is the farthest edge point (halfball etc) which would be at the equator. Most other shots, I'm looking at points along the bottom edge of the ball instead of the face. I personally think it isn't easy to discern an aim point on the face of the object ball.

 

[EagleMan]

I use the bottom of the OB and the edge of the CB to line up . I don't however look at the bottom of the OB when aiming. I started using this method with CTE. I now use a combination of CTE and the SEE system to aim
Good luck and sorry for the delay in answering. I am wary of aiming related topics

Ain't THAT the truth. (-:

THANKS for your explanation.

(-:

EagleMan

 

[EagleMan]

Not sure I get it....

So-wild guess/questions

Is looking at the bottom of the OB a better visual reference sighting at that bottom edge point?

I'm visualizing the contact point on the OB has a superimposed visable vertical line through it that goes through the bottom edge to the cloth?

Then aim as you do, to hit the contact point.



ps: I like aiming with tip on cloth at center cb spot. Helps me see overlap/eclipse. Adjust from there.


Regardless..congratulations to OP for finding something that works for you and sounds like will get you out shooting more often. Have fun.

You and REYES!!!!

(-:

EagleMan

 

[EagleMan]

Your a bit too tough to answer since it seems your asking one thing that has little to do with the OP and therefore the thread. I'll just assume you don't understand the OP.

I'll pass.

Freddie <~~~ it was straightforward

With respect...it seems that you are confused. Just to refresh your memory...here is the OP's OP.

"I've been playing pool "off & on" for the better part of 30 yrs, went down to the local pool hall today with my trusty old Palmer...I decided to try something I read on AZ a while ago, aiming at the bottom of an object ball, instead of the whole side of the cut....WOW!!! How did I not know this already? I couldn't miss a ball! why is this so much more accurate?"

As you can SEE...he stated that he was AIMING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OBJECT BALL. Right????

I MERELY asked questions DIRECTLY ON POINT...to clarify that what he was AIMING AT was the visible bottom of the OB...and I even politely corrected one poster who said the bottom of the OB was visible.

So, if you GOT that the OP was aiming at the BOTTOM OF THE OB...then you and he must both have xray vision. LOL

But...I REALLY AM confused...and what I am confused about is how you could possibly suggest that my questions didn't relate to the original post when they PRECISELY related to it.

Over and out.

EagleMan

 

[CJ Wiley]

Check out the shadow cast on the bottom of the object ball.

I've been playing pool "off & on" for the better part of 30 yrs, went down to the local pool hall today with my trusty old Palmer...I decided to try something I read on AZ a while ago, aiming at the bottom of an object ball, instead of the whole side of the cut....WOW!!! How did I not know this already? I couldn't miss a ball! why is this so much more accurate?

Check out the shadow cast on the bottom of the object ball. Use it as the reference point and aim, using the center of your tip as the "sight". Aim at the center or edge of the "shadow" that's produced on the side opposite the pocket your shooting at. On long shots this is very effective indeed.

There's some super players that use this "system". I, personally like to use the top of the object ball in this same manner, possibly because I don't go down low on the cue.

Either way, it helps you to connect the two balls together (before you go down on the shot) and that's the object no matter how you do it. "Different stokes for different folks"...'The Game is the Teacher' :wink:

 

[AtLarge]

... But...I REALLY AM confused...

You seem to be assuming that when the OP says "the bottom of an object ball" he means the base of the ball where it contacts the table.

Perhaps he means the bottom half of the OB or the bottom half of its circumference when viewing the OB as a 2-dimensional circle. Perhaps he then aims something (some part of the cue stick or some part of the CB, for example) at some point on that half-circle.

 

[Cornerman]

You seem to be assuming that when the OP says "the bottom of an object ball" he means the base of the ball where it contacts the table.

Perhaps he means the bottom half of the OB or the bottom half of its circumference when viewing the OB as a 2-dimensional circle. Perhaps he then aims something (some part of the cue stick or some part of the CB, for example) at some point on that half-circle.

Thank you. The key phrase was when he commented "instead of the whole side."

In fact, he mentions nothing of aim systems. He just aims. I took that at its simplest to mean that whatever way he looked at the object ball before (looking at the face or whole side of the object ball) he's now testing out concentrating on the bottom half or bottom semi-circle edge and seems to be seeing the object ball into the hole better. Kudos to the OP

Freddie <~~~ wants to get to the bottom of the hole better

 

[CreeDo]

This is one of those little visual aiming tricks that can't be explained rationally, it just helps a handful of people cut the ball in.

I like using the bottom of the OB as a starting point, and then visualizing the cut (using eclipsing or imagining the back of the CB contacting the OB).

Maybe Mark's doing something similar or he just skips the last part and starting at the middle helps him instinctively tweak his aim until it's correct.

Sometimes cutting a ball feels like a 'timing' thing. Basically imagine your stick is the hand on a stopwatch and you start gradually rotating it to cut the ball more and more. At some point your brain says STOP when you've rotated enough to make the ball. Looking at the bottom of the ball is sort of like zeroing your stick in to 12:00 before you start 'ticking'.

 

[pdcue]

THANKS Cornerman...but no confusion. My post you copied wasn't directed to the OP but specifically quoted another poster.

My only confusion is that my question hasn't yet been answered directly...which is...does the OP...or anyone else AIM AT the lowest visible point of the OB....or not?

Pretty basic question and pretty key to understanding the point of this thread.

You said you completely understood what was being proposed, so possibly you can help. Do people AIM AT the lowest visible portion of the ball?

(-:

EagleMan

Well I completly understand. First back off being quite so literal. The base
of the ball that you can't see is prolly less than a 1/4 inch circle.

Second, once again they say aiming, but what they really mean is
vizualization. This is a version of contact-point-to-contact-point vizualizing,
except instead of focusing on a point on the equator of the OB, he is moving that point
down to the "South Pole', so to speak. Specifically, the lowest point on the OB you can see.

Reports are that Johnny Archer uses this method.

Aiming - sighting - vizualizing, three related but distinct activities.
Dale

 

[whitewolf]

I've been playing pool "off & on" for the better part of 30 yrs, went down to the local pool hall today with my trusty old Palmer...I decided to try something I read on AZ a while ago, aiming at the bottom of an object ball, instead of the whole side of the cut....WOW!!! How did I not know this already? I couldn't miss a ball! why is this so much more accurate?

This thread should be in the AIMING SECTION!!!!!

 

[Cornerman]

This thread should be in the AIMING SECTION!!!!!

I would agree if he actually was talking about an aiming method/system. But, he wasn't.

On the other hand, subsequent discussions went right to aiming methods, so you're probably right. This time.

 

[EagleMan]

Thank you. The key phrase was when he commented "instead of the whole side."

In fact, he mentions nothing of aim systems. He just aims. I took that at its simplest to mean that whatever way he looked at the object ball before (looking at the face or whole side of the object ball) he's now testing out concentrating on the bottom half or bottom semi-circle edge and seems to be seeing the object ball into the hole better. Kudos to the OP

Freddie <~~~ wants to get to the bottom of the hole better

I realize that you are something of a legend in the pool world and on this forum and I don't mean to antagonize you or anyone else. I'm just trying to figure out what the OP meant.

I am showing RESPECT to the OP whose obvious intent was to SHARE a change in his aiming technique that had MAJOR benefits to his game. I'm sure he WANTS us to UNDERSTAND what he is sharing.

That's my only purpose in posting these comments.


However, with respect, you say he wasn't discussing an aiming system..."he just aimed." Sorry...but that isn't AT ALL an accurate description of the original post which was IN FACT at least a partial description of an AIMING SYSTEM which relied on AIMING AT the bottom of the ball...as opposed to any other portion of the ball.

Then you went on to COMPLETELY CHANGE what the OP actually stated. He said he aimed AT THE BOTTOM of the ball...which you rephrased to mean that he was "concentrating on the bottom half or bottom semi-circle edge."

Sorry, but that concept was not present...or even IMPLIED by the original post which... to save others time in reviewing it stated....

"I've been playing pool "off & on" for the better part of 30 yrs, went down to the local pool hall today with my trusty old Palmer...I decided to try something I read on AZ a while ago, aiming at the bottom of an object ball, instead of the whole side of the cut....WOW!!! How did I not know this already? I couldn't miss a ball! why is this so much more accurate?" (emphasis added to that VERY SPECIFIC COMMENT!)

I was merely asking for confirmation that he was AIMING AT the VISIBLE BOTTOM...rather than aiming at his ESTIMATE of where the actual bottom is.

And secondly, I was trying to be SURE that he suggests AIMING AT the bottom which AFAIK will infrequently produce a correct cut angle.

And for another poster who similarly suggests that "bottom" is some sort of relative term...sorry again...but it isn't.

"Bottom" is a finite term which means...."The lowest point or part." And it does NOT mean the lowest point or part you happen to be able to SEE. And "lowest" means LOWEST...not some approximation of lowest.

THAT is why I asked the question because aiming AT the actual bottom (or your estimate thereof) and the VISIBLE bottom will produce two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT shot angles.

Of course, ANY noun can be modified with other words such as "bottom half" but that is not what the original post stated.

I am GLAD that you were able to determine exactly what the OP was trying to convey. But you must be somewhat telepathic in doing so because your above explanation doesn't exist in the OP's post.

I'll have to review the thread to be sure my next comment is true and I apologize in advance if it is not...but I'm not aware that my perfectly valid question has been answered.

Is the advice to AIM AT THE VISIBLE BOTTOM OF THE BALL....or not?


(-:

EagleMan

 

[EagleMan]

Well I completly understand. First back off being quite so literal. The base
of the ball that you can't see is prolly less than a 1/4 inch circle.

Second, once again they say aiming, but what they really mean is
vizualization. This is a version of contact-point-to-contact-point vizualizing,
except instead of focusing on a point on the equator of the OB, he is moving that point
down to the "South Pole', so to speak. Specifically, the lowest point on the OB you can see.

Reports are that Johnny Archer uses this method.

Aiming - sighting - vizualizing, three related but distinct activities.
Dale

THANKS for your comments. And I am GLAD you completely understand 'cause I don't.

First, you describe the OP's concept as "...is a version of contact-point-to-contact-point vizualizing."

I take that to mean...essentially..."fractional aiming" where you visualize 1/4 of the CB covering 1/4 of the OB thereby producing a "quarter ball hit."

If that is what you mean, then the shooter AIMS such that the correct point on the CB impacts the correct point on the OB to produce a given cut angle.

But then you go on to interpret the OP as suggesting that those contact points get "moved down to the South Pole" which I'll interpret as being the lowest visible point on the OB.


Trouble is, that means he is doing what is orignal post said he was doing...which is to AIM AT the bottom of the ball. Someone will have to show me in a diagram how doing so will cause all but a small minority of shots to go in the hole.

If he is using the "bottom" as a REFERENCE POINT but actually aims at SOME OTHER POINT in reference to the "bottom"....I GET THAT. And I GET the wisdom of it because the "bottom" is a physically defined point...not one that we have to IMAGINE when using Ghost Ball or fractional aiming.

So, what I am interested in is whether...

1. He AIMS AT the bottom as his post stated or;

2. Uses the bottom as a FIXED REFERENCE POINT but AIMS at some other point in relation to the bottom????

3. And if #2 is correct...WHAT point in relation to the bottom does he aim at???

EagleMan

 

[pdcue]

THANKS for your comments. And I am GLAD you completely understand 'cause I don't.

First, you describe the OP's concept as "...is a version of contact-point-to-contact-point vizualizing."

I take that to mean...essentially..."fractional aiming" where you visualize 1/4 of the CB covering 1/4 of the OB thereby producing a "quarter ball hit."

If that is what you mean, then the shooter AIMS such that the correct point on the CB impacts the correct point on the OB to produce a given cut angle.

But then you go on to interpret the OP as suggesting that those contact points get "moved down to the South Pole" which I'll interpret as being the lowest visible point on the OB.


Trouble is, that means he is doing what is orignal post said he was doing...which is to AIM AT the bottom of the ball. Someone will have to show me in a diagram how doing so will cause all but a small minority of shots to go in the hole.

If he is using the "bottom" as a REFERENCE POINT but actually aims at SOME OTHER POINT in reference to the "bottom"....I GET THAT. And I GET the wisdom of it because the "bottom" is a physically defined point...not one that we have to IMAGINE when using Ghost Ball or fractional aiming.

So, what I am interested in is whether...

1. He AIMS AT the bottom as his post stated or;

2. Uses the bottom as a FIXED REFERENCE POINT but AIMS at some other point in relation to the bottom????

3. And if #2 is correct...WHAT point in relation to the bottom does he aim at???

EagleMan

It means he SIGHTS on a point, which he VIZUALIZES at the bottom of
the OB, and AIMS in a manner which causes the CB to CONTACT the OB
at the spot on the equator that causes the OB to go into the pocket.
Consider the AIM is exactly the same as if he were foucsing on a spot
at the equator(like I do)because the ball does go into the pocket

You're right about ONE thing - you don't understand.

If you think point-to-point equals frational-ball-aiming, then you really,
really, realy, really... don't understand.

I would advise you to search some sites by the British Snooker
coaches/instructors. Many of them give explainations about sighting
and aiming and such. Untill you grasp the difference, you will remain
forever lost in the vagueness of the details.

One thing to keep in mind - they often use the idea of 'finding the angle'
to aim a shot, but, they're British.

Dale

 

[EagleMan]

It's often better to not ask for a simple, intelligble explanation. Many people aren't capable of that and requests for it annoy them.

Anit THAT the truth!!!

THANKS!

(-:

EagleMan

 

[EagleMan]

It means he SIGHTS on a point, which he VIZUALIZES at the bottom of
the OB, and AIMS in a manner which causes the CB to CONTACT the OB
at the spot on the equator that causes the OB to go into the pocket.

Thanks...but you might consider answering the question asked next time. It was REALLY simple. And yes I DON'T understand....why you are unwilling or unable to answer such as simple question as the one asked.

Consider the AIM is exactly the same as if he were foucsing on a spot
at the equator(like I do)because the ball does go into the pocket.

WHICH BLOODY SPOT IS THE QUESTION SIR! He SAID he AIMED at the bottom of the ball. Do you GET THAT? There is only one word in that statement that has more than one syllable so it REALLY shouldn't be as tough as you seem to be making it.

(-:

You're right about ONE thing - you don't understand.

If you think point-to-point equals frational-ball-aiming, then you really,
really, realy, really... don't understand.

I didn't say I thought they were one in the same thing...at least I didn't mean to convey that notion. What I MEANT was that with fractional aiming you aim at a bloody POINT which is precisely what one does in "point-to-point aiming....thus the name of that technique.

I would advise you to search some sites by the British Snooker
coaches/instructors. Many of them give explainations about sighting
and aiming and such. Untill you grasp the difference, you will remain
forever lost in the vagueness of the details.

Snooker bores me to tears. No offense...it just does.

One thing to keep in mind - they often use the idea of 'finding the angle'
to aim a shot, but, they're British.

Dale

Oh...only the Brits worry about "finding the angle." Now I HAVE learned something. I didn't know that all pool players who have ever played the game were Brits!

THANKS!

EagleMan

PS: I checked the thread and YOU are the one who used the contact-point-contact-point comparison...not me. Have you been dipping back into the New Years Eve punch bowl???

(-:


YOU wrote....

"Second, once again they say aiming, but what they really mean is
vizualization. This is a version of contact-point-to-contact-point vizualizing,"

LOL

 

[CJ Wiley]

The main thing is to use a consistent point on the object ball to make a connection

This is one of those little visual aiming tricks that can't be explained rationally, it just helps a handful of people cut the ball in.

I like using the bottom of the OB as a starting point, and then visualizing the cut (using eclipsing or imagining the back of the CB contacting the OB).

Maybe Mark's doing something similar or he just skips the last part and starting at the middle helps him instinctively tweak his aim until it's correct.

Sometimes cutting a ball feels like a 'timing' thing. Basically imagine your stick is the hand on a stopwatch and you start gradually rotating it to cut the ball more and more. At some point your brain says STOP when you've rotated enough to make the ball. Looking at the bottom of the ball is sort of like zeroing your stick in to 12:00 before you start 'ticking'.

I like the way you put that.

I use the center of the TOP of the object ball for any shot under a "half ball" hit and I know players that connect using the bottom the same way.

If the shot is over a half ball I just shift to the edge as my "reference point". Shane showed me how he uses the bottom shadow of the object ball in London. This is an interesting technique as well. The main thing is to use a consistent point on the object ball to make a connection to create the angle.

Obviously you have to use a specific portion of the cue ball as well, however, that's for another thread. :wink:

 

[pdcue]

Oh...only the Brits worry about "finding the angle." Now I HAVE learned something. I didn't know that all pool players who have ever played the game were Brits!

THANKS!

EagleMan

PS: I checked the thread and YOU are the one who used the contact-point-contact-point comparison...not me. Have you been dipping back into the New Years Eve punch bowl???

(-:


YOU wrote....

"Second, once again they say aiming, but what they really mean is
vizualization. This is a version of contact-point-to-contact-point vizualizing,"

LOL

Well, I did answer the specific question, a few times, as did others.

I am now totally convinced that you couldn't possibly be as stupid as
your answers indicate, plus the fact that you slipped a few times
to reveal you can read with comprehension(when you find it convenient)
so I am going with my inital assesment.

You are indeed a feclkess TROLL.
But thanks for stopping in.

Dale(captain of the troll patrol)