New Aiming System (Partial)
- Thread starter precisepotting
- Start date
I like the program you are using here. It shows exactly what happens to the shot angle when the CB remains on the center-to-center line with the OB, but varies in distance. In order to pocket the ball center hole, the aim would need to be thinner at closer range, as shown. This is keeping the shot line fixed and adjusting the point of aim accordingly to match the required angle for a center hole shot.
However, if we keep the point of aim fixed, based on the CB's perception from varying distances, the same shot angle can be used to pocket the ball. In this case (the shot in the cool shot diagrams) the shot angle would simply shift from center pocket to left of center pocket from a greater CB distance and shift right of center pocket when the CB is closer to the OB. Closer than about 8 inches for this particular shot angle would result in a miss, so a thinner aim would need to be used beginning at this closer range.
It's figuratively important to establish point of reference in the subject of aiming, but the variable factors almost make it a moot point when one looks back after establishing a reality based perception and physics understanding "solution".
I can make a 90 degree cut look like a half ball hit when down on the shot just before pulling the trigger.
One thing I know that is productive, is one line of perception does not work unless you can fall into that perception the exact same way every time through some sort of personal esoteric ability of some sort. I won't argue with end results if a person makes it work to a basic guarenteed degree. To each their own.
These close distance shots of 30 degree as an example are tricky because a typical natural perception of most people, brings you into the shot "thick". The propper visual alignment of understanding this dilemma, will solve this when you then fall into the shot position and then see this new perspective if one has never tried this aproach before.
BUT, there's another problem, and that is, what is this new point of reference to establish an "offset" visual alignment AND pick more than just one line of said perception? To make this particular type of shot more comfortable and not thick to the eye when down on the shot, means a stand up visual of an overcut or even under cut of varying ball width degrees as much as 2-3 width/diameters, depending on your own personal "solve"......and then how do you verify such a desparity "in space" with a second point of reference that imo is mandatory for the common human element of execution formulation?
Hell, I'm not even factoring friction and stick angle.
That's where I think Stan was/is diabolical to come up with edge to contact point AND then a second visual of ob edge splitting ccb. This double reference perception really solves a lot of these problems from an objective point of view, because now you have a tractor beam to bring you into "a", not a "the" correct "shot line".......because as I said before, it's still "relative" when factoring other elements. However, Stan does offer a stance/body solution for this and that brings back the objectivity to cover the basis of "solved". Good job Stan.
Here's the problem from my own perspective, I don't want to shoot like that, for varying legit reasons. I think center ball mastery is needed but I believe pool is ultimately an English/Spin based game. Not the other way around.
So the struggle continues. I believe pool is a pure perception business at the highest level. All relative point of reference is needed in discussion, like what is discussed in this thread and most others. One point is needed and 2 is mandatory imo and if one can establish in their own way, more than 2 points of reference in a given shot, then that is even better.
I don't even know if most understand what the he'll I've said or even contributed in a productive way here, but I guess that's for somebody else to decide and my door is wide open to rational criticism if one can establish a basis of productivity.
Somebody mentioned in this thread about a "triangle". I've practiced so much, there was a brief time where I saw a triangle in the object ball itself, that proved to be a very decent visual system of a simple single one dimensional target. The problem is, for me, it feels too "loose", or as Ernesto Domingez said, it feels too "wobbly" in his stroke to "aim" in certain ways that some like and he doesn't.
I can make a 90 degree cut look like a half ball hit when down on the shot just before pulling the trigger.
One thing I know that is productive, is one line of perception does not work unless you can fall into that perception the exact same way every time through some sort of personal esoteric ability of some sort. I won't argue with end results if a person makes it work to a basic guarenteed degree. To each their own.
These close distance shots of 30 degree as an example are tricky because a typical natural perception of most people, brings you into the shot "thick". The propper visual alignment of understanding this dilemma, will solve this when you then fall into the shot position and then see this new perspective if one has never tried this aproach before.
BUT, there's another problem, and that is, what is this new point of reference to establish an "offset" visual alignment AND pick more than just one line of said perception? To make this particular type of shot more comfortable and not thick to the eye when down on the shot, means a stand up visual of an overcut or even under cut of varying ball width degrees as much as 2-3 width/diameters, depending on your own personal "solve"......and then how do you verify such a desparity "in space" with a second point of reference that imo is mandatory for the common human element of execution formulation?
Hell, I'm not even factoring friction and stick angle.
That's where I think Stan was/is diabolical to come up with edge to contact point AND then a second visual of ob edge splitting ccb. This double reference perception really solves a lot of these problems from an objective point of view, because now you have a tractor beam to bring you into "a", not a "the" correct "shot line".......because as I said before, it's still "relative" when factoring other elements. However, Stan does offer a stance/body solution for this and that brings back the objectivity to cover the basis of "solved". Good job Stan.
Here's the problem from my own perspective, I don't want to shoot like that, for varying legit reasons. I think center ball mastery is needed but I believe pool is ultimately an English/Spin based game. Not the other way around.
So the struggle continues. I believe pool is a pure perception business at the highest level. All relative point of reference is needed in discussion, like what is discussed in this thread and most others. One point is needed and 2 is mandatory imo and if one can establish in their own way, more than 2 points of reference in a given shot, then that is even better.
I don't even know if most understand what the he'll I've said or even contributed in a productive way here, but I guess that's for somebody else to decide and my door is wide open to rational criticism if one can establish a basis of productivity.
Somebody mentioned in this thread about a "triangle". I've practiced so much, there was a brief time where I saw a triangle in the object ball itself, that proved to be a very decent visual system of a simple single one dimensional target. The problem is, for me, it feels too "loose", or as Ernesto Domingez said, it feels too "wobbly" in his stroke to "aim" in certain ways that some like and he doesn't.
All of this talk of one or two lines or more of perception is a bit overkill. I guess if a player has no idea where the aim line is in order to send the CB to the proper contact point on the OB, a fixed perception must be part of their formula in order to find that aim line, the "solution". I get that. But it's really not complicated to find the aim line without a multi-line perception. All you need is a point of reference at the OB (a point of aim), then from that point to center CB provides the aim line. That's it.
Stan specifically says contact points are too small to be seen, so I'm not sure why you say he came up with "edge to contact point AND then a second visual of ob edge splitting ccb". What version of CTE are you talking about? It's not Stan's.
Having a point of reference for aiming is not "figuratively" important, it's literally important.
I believe we are getting off track here. We can argue till the cow comes home. Let's believe that the other is correct. What you guys are talking are perception point/s to aim at. I am advocating two points. Straight on and total miss as two main aiming point. Is it different from all existing aiming system?
What I am trying to say is: I aimed straight on even though it is a 10 degree shot. I moved my bridge length without changing the aim. I play a side-spin and the cue ball strikes the object at a 9 to 11 degree angle making the long pot. No adjustment in the aiming point at all.
You're right, sorry for the side track.
You lengthen your fingers and apply back hand english?
Or you move the fingers of your bridge to the side to effect english?
I physically change the bridge length by moving my bridge (closer or further from the cue ball) relative to a sweet spot, pivot and apply the BHE. The last aim just before pivot is still center to center. This is what I meant by precise aiming. How precise can you get than aiming center to center.
Last edited:
"Contact point" referring to A, B or C. If that terminology is incorrect, then I'll make sure to be more accurate if that is a requirement to making a point.
"That's it" is a finality that does not fit in the subject at hand, thus "figuratively" is accurate in pertinence to my statements. Your finality ends with yourself and others who agree.
I believe it's more constructive to operate under a assumption that we are all ultimately wrong, including Mr. Shuffett himself. I will always believe there is ultimately a better way that nobody has thought of, even if it means it can't be objectively explained, but if the concept can be relayed, then that's fine with me.
I also believe perception will be the key......possibly. But whatever it is, a concept unknown as of yet.
I told a very novice player with a 15$ stick from walmart, that i can see a triangle (amongst other things) in a ball and he said he see's an "X".
I said, oh?.....please show me and explain.
My question to you is, what would you have said?
This is one of the best quotes I've read in s while. Too often the only real difference in opinions or ideas is the terminology used to express them. I didn't mean "that's it" as a finality to aiming. I meant it in reference to a specific method of aiming. When a player finds a system or method that works, be it ghostball, contact point to contact point, CTE, fractions, precision potting, etc...they say to themselves, "I got it! That's it!".
I'm not sure what I would've said to that player. Saying "I just see the shots" seems like the easy way out because I've said it so many times it's my automatic response. I guess now I could tell such a player that I sometimes see an aim line from center CB to a vertical line signifying the fractional hit needed to pocket the ball. And like yourself, I would definitely ask him to show and try to explain what he sees. Comparing ideas can lead to more ideas, better ways of understanding.
Exactly. That is why Precision Potting Aiming System focuses on these two aiming points. No shifting to aim somewhere else. Just aim at either of these points and fire away.
That works.
Put your bridge closer to the CB to effect a large angle or lengthen the distance to reduce the angle - This also works for the separation between the OB and CB...you know.
Try not to shape with the CB near the rail - hard to lengthen the bridge distance.:smile:
I have an indepth study into it, in the Precision Potting Manual which is by the way, FOC.
Actually, if you move your bridge closer to the CB (shorter bridge length), you get a smaller deflection as opposed to moving away from the CB (longer bridge length).
So, Precision Potting Aiming System is moving of the bridge arm forward and backward, as you aimed center to center. It is akin to the fine knob when you use microscope. The coarse knob is more like we try to make the minute changes with our bridge by aiming at the different point on the OB.
Last edited:
I use a Vernier caliper.:smile:
I also use a Z2 low deflection shaft.
Geometrically your method is sound but the necessary bridge adjustments are legion but can be memorized.
Hi LAMas,
Give me your email and I send you the manual. Then you know that all these have been worked out in the siimplest form.
Give me your email and I send you the manual. Then you know that all these have been worked out in the siimplest form.
Thanks a million BC21. This diagram gave me a brainwave on how to complete the Precision Potting Aiming System. I will write the manual in due time.
Just keep in mind that throw manipulates the theoretical angle in huge ways. In fact, I've set up a half-ball shot many times recently to see just how much it can be thrown. I've found that with just the right firm stun and my Aramith Tournament Ball set, I can reduce the angle from the theoretical 30 degrees down to about 22 degrees. And a soft shot with just the right side spin can increase the angle to, if I recall, even up to about 45 degrees. And this all with the same exact aim point and contact point.
What does this mean? It means that a half-ball aim can be used to cover a range of about 23 degrees worth of shots.
5/8 aim covers about as much ground, going from its theoretical 22 degrees down to about 15 degrees with just the right firm stun and way up to the 3/8 aim theoretical angle of 39 degrees.
3/8 aim also has a wide range, but maybe not as wide as the other two.
So, you might want to look at the range from 5/8 aim to 3/8 aim (cue outside edge at edge of object ball up to cue inside edge at edge of object ball) as covering about 35 degrees if necessary.
I think it's also very important to realize that stun and draw add more throw to shots, so if you're faced with, say, a 30 degree shot that you want to use stun or draw on, you have to aim outside the edge slightly. Even a 30 degree shot with follow will drag the angle down a few degrees to probably 27 or so because of the severity of throw around the edge ball aims.
Last edited: