Contact Point and Visual Distortion

[Patrick Johnson]

I think this may be what Matt and Brian were referring to. I put a strip of blue tape on the one ball, then a dot at the true equator contact spot, and another dot higher up from the equator.

If you’re estimating a fractional hit by standing behind the shot line, finding the contact point, then keeping your eye on it as you move to the aim line, then if you’ve chosen a contact point above the equator it will indicate too thick of a fractional hit.

View attachment 744948View attachment 744949View attachment 744950View attachment 744951

Bonus: that last pic makes it clear why we tend to over cut jump shots, and how thick you need to aim this one in particular depending on how high in the air the CB is at contact.

You may be right, but...

I assume you put those dots so far apart (vertically) for illustration - I doubt that anybody actually visualizes the equator/contact point that high on the ball. That means your very small lateral difference from the other direction (your red lines) becomes a fraction of the difference you show, likely well within the margin for error and easily unconsciously "tuned" to greater accuracy (if needed) by a practiced player.

My previous comments were about sighting the contact point's distance from centerball from slightly different heights while in shooting position, not keeping it in sight moving back to shooting position from sighting the OB-to-pocket line. Either way it's not a problem worth worrying about.

Thanks for taking the time to make those visuals.

pj
chgo

 

[BilliardsAbout]

What does that have to do with my post? Did you space out and mean to reply to someone else or is it just another reading and comprehending instance?

You asked to read the content I've posted on atheist forums. Much of it goes like this:

No one is perfect except Jesus. The bad news is imperfect people cannot exist in a utopia, so neither of us can go to Heaven.

The good news is Jesus Christ loves us, died a horrible death by torture on the cross then rose, to perfect us.

Trust Jesus today for eternal life, when He meets us, He will perfect us for Heaven!

I hope you were sincerely asking--the last few questions you've asked like "Which pro(s) do you coach so we can watch and learn?" turned out to be sarcasm--even though I responded and gave you places to watch . . .

 

[BilliardsAbout]

You may be right, but...

View attachment 744977

I assume you put those dots so far apart (vertically) for illustration - I doubt that anybody actually visualizes the equator/contact point that high on the ball. That means your very small lateral difference from the other direction (your red lines) becomes a fraction of the difference you show, likely well within the margin for error and easily unconsciously "tuned" to greater accuracy (if needed) by a practiced player.

My previous comments were about sighting the contact point's distance from centerball from slightly different heights while in shooting position, not keeping it in sight moving back to shooting position from sighting the OB-to-pocket line. Either way it's not a problem worth worrying about.

Thanks for taking the time to make those visuals.

pj
chgo

Kranicki commented on this issue in his book, which book he wrote with the aid of Willie Mosconi. Mosconi agreed with Kranicki that his work could assist people with aim.

I hope you are working to give sincere advice rather than backpedaling because when I say white, you say black, reflexively.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Kranicki commented on this issue in his book, which book he wrote with the aid of Willie Mosconi. Mosconi agreed with Kranicki that his work could assist people with aim.

Namedropping doesn't make nonsense true.

pj
chgo

 

[sparkle84]

You asked to read the content I've posted on atheist forums. Much of it goes like this:

No one is perfect except Jesus. The bad news is imperfect people cannot exist in a utopia, so neither of us can go to Heaven.

The good news is Jesus Christ loves us, died a horrible death by torture on the cross then rose, to perfect us.

Trust Jesus today for eternal life, when He meets us, He will perfect us for Heaven!

I hope you were sincerely asking--the last few questions you've asked like "Which pro(s) do you coach so we can watch and learn?" turned out to be sarcasm--even though I responded and gave you places to watch . . .

No, I asked for a link so I can read it myself and see if you can possibly display more semblance of logic and/or english comprehension than you do here. I realize I'm grasping at straws but nice guy that I am I wanted to give you one last chance at exhibiting a degree of normalcy.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

No, I asked for a link so I can read it myself and see if you can possibly display more semblance of logic and/or english comprehension than you do here. I realize I'm grasping at straws but nice guy that I am I wanted to give you one last chance at exhibiting a degree of normalcy.

I agree. You are grasping at straws.

Speaking of logic and clarity, I've redacted your comments to:

"No. I asked for a link to see you perhaps display more logic and clearer comprehension that you do at AZ. I realize I'm grasping at straws, but I'm a nice person and so would like to see you behave normally, on another forum."

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Namedropping doesn't make nonsense true.

pj
chgo

The OB changes in perception as we move from standing erect to the pool stance as outlined above. You are handwaving at an actual problem:

"Either way it's not a problem worth worrying about."

Having trouble discerning an aim target on the OB is a huge problem as described by struggling players on 100 threads at AZ. My suggestion is you get on a Zoom with me, I will diagram some shots for you to perform--simple cuts without english--so you can show how you have no problem cutting balls into the pockets.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The OB changes in perception as we move from standing erect to the pool stance as outlined above.

That only happens when you sight the contact point from one position and then walk around to shooting position - and only then to a minimal degree. In other words, it's only a "problem" in your mind (and whoever's naive enough to listen to you).

pj
chgo

 

[sparkle84]

I agree. You are grasping at straws.

Speaking of logic and clarity, I've redacted your comments to:

"No. I asked for a link to see you perhaps display more logic and clearer comprehension that you do at AZ. I realize I'm grasping at straws, but I'm a nice person and so would like to see you behave normally, on another forum."

Perfectly willing to admit that I'm not an English major. Oh btw you forgot to add the link

 

[BC21]

Perfectly willing to admit that I'm not an English major. Oh btw you forgot to add the link

Actually, what you wrote was better and more sense than the "redacted" version. Lol

 

[sparkle84]

Actually, what you wrote was better and more sense than the "redacted" version. Lol

Well,thanks but we all know 478,000 people could agree and he'd still find a way to say it isn't so.

 

[BRKNRUN]

I hear you, but even faster IMHO is "Hit that spot . . . too thick or too thin? . . . Shoot it again . . . "

But I like your methods including reasonable fraction lines. I don't know anyone who can clearly see 1/32 of a ball's width and so on.

I kind of doubt it is necessary to have 32 fractional points on a OB to pocket all the shots.....I also doubt there is anyone that precise in stroke accuracy.....

No matter what tool you use to get aligned....ultimately there is going to be a need for some feel (aka confidence) for making a ball......Not a math guy but I think there is kind of a formula for shot making.....or ESM (effective shot making).......ESM=M+E=F (method/experience=feel).

Along the "fractional" methods of alignment. You can actually get more precise locations than one would think.

I (turn off) the 3D view because (as suggested) just changing your head height at set up is going to skew your perception of a 3D object. If we can eliminate that perhaps we can now apply multiple consistent aim points....

I will use the example posted.

Forget the 3D aspect....(and this assumes you set up consistently the same way every time to the ball) same head height)....If you look at the image in 2D you will be able to see some "markers"

The circle represents a cue tip (may not be exactly to scale but should give your the jist of it).

We can aim the tip at the bottom of the ball (center, left or right)....
We can also aim at the edge of the ball....Finding the equator is actually quite easy as above and below curves away.....You can also use something that you don't see (until you see it)....notice below the equator is dark vs above is light.

Now we have three "base" fractional aiming lines (center - 1/4 - edge)......which will make a vast many shots on the table...........Now if we "flip the tip" (so to speak) for center and edge.....(1/4 never gits flipped you just move to another alignment).....but you can align the left edge of tip vs right edge and that adds two more per side.......So there are actually 9 different specific fractional alignment points "on the ball"

The rest of the tip alignment points are what I refer as (off the ball) but can be aligned starting from "on the ball" aim points and a pivot applied to center CB......The "off the ball" alignment points are the only time I will use a pivot method.

I do a Ghost Ball Conversion method for shots that don't easily identify themselves......I use the tip through center GB to identify one of the fractional markers on the ball...just extend the tip line to the OB.....but I look at the ball in 2D and all the markers (on the ball) will be the very edge of the ball either along the bottom or at the equator.

So.....IMO......(for me)......I can get (and retain) a more precise and consistent alignment location than trying to view a specific spot in the middle of the OB.

Ultimately though a player will have to use the formula suggested above with any and all methods and find the one the gets "them" the best feel.

As always......Thanks HH

 

[BilliardsAbout]

That only happens when you sight the contact point from one position and then walk around to shooting position - and only then to a minimal degree. In other words, it's only a "problem" in your mind (and whoever's naive enough to listen to you).

pj
chgo

The reason why pros sight from the contact point on a difficult shot then walk around to the shooting position is . . . ?

Answer: The problem is not "to a minimal degree".

You waste energy backpedaling on your false theory, just so you can throw more shade.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Perfectly willing to admit that I'm not an English major. Oh btw you forgot to add the link

You're barely an english user.

If you ask me, I won't do it. Capiche? (That last isn't English.)

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Well,thanks but we all know 478,000 people could agree and he'd still find a way to say it isn't so.

Your math is less than your english, since you think 2 - 478,000 plus there are multiple people disagreeing on this thread!

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I kind of doubt it is necessary to have 32 fractional points on a OB to pocket all the shots.....I also doubt there is anyone that precise in stroke accuracy.....

No matter what tool you use to get aligned....ultimately there is going to be a need for some feel (aka confidence) for making a ball......Not a math guy but I think there is kind of a formula for shot making.....or ESM (effective shot making).......ESM=M+E=F (method/experience=feel).

Along the "fractional" methods of alignment. You can actually get more precise locations than one would think.

I (turn off) the 3D view because (as suggested) just changing your head height at set up is going to skew your perception of a 3D object. If we can eliminate that perhaps we can now apply multiple consistent aim points....

I will use the example posted.
View attachment 745827
Forget the 3D aspect....(and this assumes you set up consistently the same way every time to the ball) same head height)....If you look at the image in 2D you will be able to see some "markers"

The circle represents a cue tip (may not be exactly to scale but should give your the jist of it).

We can aim the tip at the bottom of the ball (center, left or right)....
We can also aim at the edge of the ball....Finding the equator is actually quite easy as above and below curves away.....You can also use something that you don't see (until you see it)....notice below the equator is dark vs above is light.

Now we have three "base" fractional aiming lines (center - 1/4 - edge)......which will make a vast many shots on the table...........Now if we "flip the tip" (so to speak) for center and edge.....(1/4 never gits flipped you just move to another alignment).....but you can align the left edge of tip vs right edge and that adds two more per side.......So there are actually 9 different specific fractional alignment points "on the ball"

The rest of the tip alignment points are what I refer as (off the ball) but can be aligned starting from "on the ball" aim points and a pivot applied to center CB......The "off the ball" alignment points are the only time I will use a pivot method.

I do a Ghost Ball Conversion method for shots that don't easily identify themselves......I use the tip through center GB to identify one of the fractional markers on the ball...just extend the tip line to the OB.....but I look at the ball in 2D and all the markers (on the ball) will be the very edge of the ball either along the bottom or at the equator.

So.....IMO......(for me)......I can get (and retain) a more precise and consistent alignment location than trying to view a specific spot in the middle of the OB.

Ultimately though a player will have to use the formula suggested above with any and all methods and find the one the gets "them" the best feel.

As always......Thanks HH

Yes. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

It may help in aligning on center CB to triangulate the CB’s absolute bottom, its center of mass (“peach pit”) and the “apparent” CB’s absolute top (the apparent top can move in perception in the full stance as described), otherwise, many students swear their cue tip is pointed dead center when it isn’t . . .

 

[BC21]

You're barely an english user.

If you ask me, I won't do it. Capiche? (That last isn't English.)

Just for the fun of it... "Capiche" is English. It is one of several English spellings for the Italian word, Capisci (kah-PEE-chee).

 

[sparkle84]

I kind of doubt it is necessary to have 32 fractional points on a OB to pocket all the shots.....I also doubt there is anyone that precise in stroke accuracy.....

No matter what tool you use to get aligned....ultimately there is going to be a need for some feel (aka confidence) for making a ball......Not a math guy but I think there is kind of a formula for shot making.....or ESM (effective shot making).......ESM=M+E=F (method/experience=feel).

Along the "fractional" methods of alignment. You can actually get more precise locations than one would think.

I (turn off) the 3D view because (as suggested) just changing your head height at set up is going to skew your perception of a 3D object. If we can eliminate that perhaps we can now apply multiple consistent aim points....

I will use the example posted.
View attachment 745827
Forget the 3D aspect....(and this assumes you set up consistently the same way every time to the ball) same head height)....If you look at the image in 2D you will be able to see some "markers"

The circle represents a cue tip (may not be exactly to scale but should give your the jist of it).

We can aim the tip at the bottom of the ball (center, left or right)....
We can also aim at the edge of the ball....Finding the equator is actually quite easy as above and below curves away.....You can also use something that you don't see (until you see it)....notice below the equator is dark vs above is light.

Now we have three "base" fractional aiming lines (center - 1/4 - edge)......which will make a vast many shots on the table...........Now if we "flip the tip" (so to speak) for center and edge.....(1/4 never gits flipped you just move to another alignment).....but you can align the left edge of tip vs right edge and that adds two more per side.......So there are actually 9 different specific fractional alignment points "on the ball"

The rest of the tip alignment points are what I refer as (off the ball) but can be aligned starting from "on the ball" aim points and a pivot applied to center CB......The "off the ball" alignment points are the only time I will use a pivot method.

I do a Ghost Ball Conversion method for shots that don't easily identify themselves......I use the tip through center GB to identify one of the fractional markers on the ball...just extend the tip line to the OB.....but I look at the ball in 2D and all the markers (on the ball) will be the very edge of the ball either along the bottom or at the equator.

So.....IMO......(for me)......I can get (and retain) a more precise and consistent alignment location than trying to view a specific spot in the middle of the OB.

Ultimately though a player will have to use the formula suggested above with any and all methods and find the one the gets "them" the best feel.

As always......Thanks HH

Yes. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

It may help in aligning on center CB to triangulate the CB’s absolute bottom, its center of mass (“peach pit”) and the “apparent” CB’s absolute top (the apparent top can move in perception in the full stance as described), otherwise, many students swear their cue tip is pointed dead center when it isn’t . . .

If you don't think good players can focus in on a point 5/64ths of an inch you are sadly mistaken. They are a lot more precise than that.
As to double o's contention regarding center ball perception.....close to100% of the time it's due to head position/faulty vision center, NOT all the garbage he's talking about.
Once again double o, pool is not rocket science, it's actually fairly simple, to most people anyway.

 

[BRKNRUN]

If you don't think good players can focus in on a point 5/64ths of an inch you are sadly mistaken. They are a lot more precise than that.

I am just not sure about that.....If that is what it takes to be a top player.....I have no chance....zip zero nada.............I made a ball with 32 contrast lines to help make it easier to prove you right....(which obviously actual balls don't have)....I don't know about anyone else....my eye sight sucks....so there is NO WAY I am picking out 1-1mm line on a OB at even moderate shot distance.

Granted I don't have the best phone camera....and I used the same zoom that my natural eyes have....(none)....The camera didn't even pick up all the lines (without zoom).....

To my eyes from a moderate shot distance....the ball just looks black....

I am sorry....regarding someone being as accurate as 1/32 on a ball......both visually and precision of CB contact to OB contact.......I am going to have to refer you to my UAS link below.

 

[Oikawa]

I am just not sure about that.....If that is what it takes to be a top player.....I have no chance....zip zero nada.............I made a ball with 32 contrast lines to help make it easier to prove you right....(which obviously actual balls don't have)....I don't know about anyone else....my eye sight sucks....so there is NO WAY I am picking out 1-1mm line on a OB at even moderate shot distance.
View attachment 745963View attachment 745966
Granted I don't have the best phone camera....and I used the same zoom that my natural eyes have....(none)....The camera didn't even pick up all the lines (without zoom).....

To my eyes from a moderate shot distance....the ball just looks black....

I am sorry....regarding someone being as accurate as 1/32 on a ball......both visually and precision of CB contact to OB contact.......I am going to have to refer you to my UAS link below.

A typical pro probably doesn't consciously pick a 1/32th of a ball and aim for it. However, when they let their subconscious do the work for them in picking the exact alignment, no matter what conscious aiming method they use (contact point, ghost ball visualization, CB/OB overlap, fractions, whatever) the resulting accuracy can be even more precise. Using the subconscious is almost anyone's best aiming system eventually, if they practice for long enough.