Marvin' method, for me, suffers from my parallax view.
Thanks.:smile:
Alas, Big E...misery loves company.:wink:
Best,
Mike
Marvin' method, for me, suffers from my parallax view.
Thanks.:smile:
Do you know if CJ is playing in any big tournaments coming up like Turningstone or is he just gambling? Johnnyt
Can anybody fill in some blanks for me? I heard CJ ran with Buddy Hall years back. Just curious. I'm working on a little something and I'm trying to put some things together.
Best,
Mike
Marvin's system involves aiming a piece of the cueball at a piece of the object ball. CJ's system involves aiming a piece of the cueball at a fixed edge of the object ball. For all intents and purposes, the systems are different in description alone. In execution, they are pretty much identical.
Marvin uses cutting edge to contact edge as his reference. CJ uses slices of the cueball vs the contact edge. Not all that different.
... Both Marvin and CJ asks that one shift his visual line of reference away from the center of the CB to focus on the contact point on the CB to the contact point on the OB...or edge or.... for a center CB hit, the cue must be parallel to this visual line with the cue tip aimed at the center of the CB.
This will send the CB to the GB, but if the shift is not parallel or the correct angle, one will be off by that small angular error and hit the OB a bit thin or thick.
Then when the OB is down table from the CB it appears to be a smaller diameter, the aim line, for me, must be teaked to accomodate this.
Just saying.:smile:
... I like CJ's explanation of how his system works on the table, as he only uses the edge of the object ball. as it is the only "finite" point. You can only "judge" centre on an object ball. You can use centre on the cueball, as it's right in front of you. ...
CJ's reference points on the OB are both the edge and the center, not just the edge.
Thanks for clarifying; I see what you mean. I asked for more details because I wasn't sure whether you were talking just about line-of-sight complications (centered vs. off-centered on the CB) or also the smaller appearing OB. I see that you mean both.
When I use Chin's approach, I try to think of sending the CB down that one-rail track or plane that is slicing through the two contact points. I'm concentrating on that track, even if the cue is offset to the center of the CB. Since I'm visualizing a line between the two contact points, I don't worry about perspective differences in size of the two balls.
Oh..... careful grasshopper! You have much to learn! You took one small step for non-system users, and got foot stuck in mouth! :wink::grin:
Thanks for clarifying; I see what you mean. I asked for more details because I wasn't sure whether you were talking just about line-of-sight complications (centered vs. off-centered on the CB) or also the smaller appearing OB. I see that you mean both.
When I use Chin's approach, I try to think of sending the CB down that one-rail track or plane that is slicing through the two contact points. I'm concentrating on that track, even if the cue is offset to the center of the CB. Since I'm visualizing a line between the two contact points, I don't worry about perspective differences in size of the two balls.
Thanks again,
In rethinking your position, I also believe that there is real value in the contact point on the OB aligned to the contact point on the CB.
...
What is nice about this method is that all of the points of aim lie on the equator of the OB and never off of the edge of the OB (away from it's outer edge)... like a point on the felt or the rail or...wherever.
This method takes the pivot out of the equation as in CTE and can enhance accuracy...parsimony. ...
An example of this is CTE, ... there are at least 4 opportunities for a cumulative error. I admit that some tolerances may offset others, but if aiming the contact point on the OB with the contact point on the CB can be perceived and the cue aligned correctly to the center of the CB, there will be less opportunities for cumulative error.
...
So the mind can create a mental "look up table" to recognize the angle to the pocket/target as it relates to the position of the OB and CB ...
So Joe Tucker's aiming system is about the same as CJ's? Johnnyt
I’ll try to do some drawings later to explain where I’m coming from but if someone wants to get a head start on that feel free as I believe my son is pulling me towards a big green field with a little white ball as we speak.
Nope, mine is strictly cp-cp and CJs is more slice of cb to slice of ob based on the angle of shot facing you.
Once you know my aiming lines you will be able to identify the 2 cps immediately and then it's a matter of making them connnect, which can be tough for many of us.
I always liked CJs method but didn't teach it because I didn't like the part of it that would call for me to teach people how to recognize what angle of a shot they were facing as I wasn't really good at doing that myself.
BUT with all this talk about aiming systems in the forum at the same time and me coming back into the groove of things;
I awoke this morning and my first thought was "ahha, I could use my aiming lines which are drawn out in 10 degree increments to improve ones perception of recognizing shot angles.
The generally thought that I had was okay the object ball part is easy, it’s on this line so it’s going in at blank degrees and that would be a definite cuz it’s laying on one of my aiming lines. Now for the tough part, how do I know what angle the cb is approaching the object ball? Well this will not be a definite but I can guide and help improve someones perception if they use my aiming lines as parallel references. And once they get good at that they would be able to say okay "this is a blank degree angle and that calls for cb section to be pointed at this ob section.
I’ll try to do some drawings later to explain where I’m coming from but if someone wants to get a head start on that feel free as I believe my son is pulling me towards a big green field with a little white ball as we speak.
FYI, some methods are described here:Has anyone ever heard of a different method that identifies the shot angle? I’m sure there has to be some?