Does anyone out there use this method of aiming the tip?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OER4gVV8ei4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OER4gVV8ei4&feature=related
Aim the Tip
- Thread starter Palmerfan
- Start date
Not again!!! Isn't that CTE??
Here's a great aiming system,,all you will ever need.
http://youtu.be/_q4jEPmHFa8
Here's a great aiming system,,all you will ever need.
http://youtu.be/_q4jEPmHFa8
Bite your tongue man! No. 
This is understandable without a doctorate in physics :killingme:
Thanks for letting me know. I just found the BRAND NEW 3 DVD SET 6 hrs - "Mike Sigel Perfect Pool" for $28 with free shipping. Gotta have some value if thats how Sigel aimed and played..and for less than 10 bucks per DVD from one of the best players ever..seems pretty cheap.
Hmmm, that looks familiar.
Yes, it was posted before. I use it quite regularly. I find it particularly useful with very thin cuts shots. where as I might mess up in that situation, I find I am making more shots.
Yes, it was posted before. I use it quite regularly. I find it particularly useful with very thin cuts shots. where as I might mess up in that situation, I find I am making more shots.
This is clearly not a geometrical, technically accurate system. It will only work for a very limited range of shots if in fact you do exactly as told. Consider, for example, any shot over 45 degrees. If you make shots using this system, it's because you are making huge (huge!!) subconscious adjustments.
But the system does get you to hit the ball on the correct side.
But the system does get you to hit the ball on the correct side.
How so?
Can I ask what changes if it works on cuts 45 degrees and below why it wouldn't work for cuts larger than 45..and did Sigel make those huge adjustments?..no sarcasm intended just want the explanation of an instructor to understand what changes for thinner hits.
Can I ask what changes if it works on cuts 45 degrees and below why it wouldn't work for cuts larger than 45..and did Sigel make those huge adjustments?..no sarcasm intended just want the explanation of an instructor to understand what changes for thinner hits.
I have been doing this since 1962. I shoot thru the cue ball like its not even there. I shoot directly at the OB with my cue stick never taking my eyes off of the contact point. You can see where you are going to hit the QB in your peripheral vision.
But there is alot more to this than illustrated. If your not hitting the OB contact point then your pre-shot line up and stance need to be looked at.
The bridge is the front sight and the butt of the cue is the rear sight, the QB is the bullet. Like a rifle if the front and rear sights are not lined up correctly you cant expect the bullet to hit the target. So don't try to watch the bullet keep your eyes on the target.
Thanks
John
With thinner hits, the edge of the shaft must be aimed well outside of the object ball (i.e., nowhere close to the contact point). For illustrations and further explanation, see the quote from "AtLarge" here:
Regards,
Dave
I would have to disagree with this. Thin cuts are achieved with the inside of your ferrule just outside the edge of OB.
That depends on how thin the cut is. It also depends on the diameter of the shaft/ferrule. Regardless, for most cuts, the edge of the shaft needs to be pointed somewhere other than at the contact point on the object ball (which is the topic of this thread).
Here are a few photographs from AtLarge clearly showing how the edge of the shaft points in many different places relative to the object ball contact point (or edge):
For more info, further explanation, and more examples, see:
Regards,
Dave
In the video, the system is described as always aiming the edge of the shaft at the contact point on the object ball. According to the system, if the edge of the shaft were aimed at the edge of the object ball, you would get a 90-degree cut. That's clearly very, very wrong. The system has large errors for nearly all cut angles, but the errors for thin cuts are enormous. This is pretty simple geometry.
But the system is not based on geometry. The system gets you to pay attention to the contact point -- which is good -- and makes you pay attention to stick alignment -- which is good. With practice, the system will give you some kind of aiming framework. The system might be described as a perceptual or psychological system, but it is not a geometrically accurate system.
Whether the system will be helpful to any particular person depends on that person and how they apply it. Personally, because I can see the gross geometric errors in the system, I could never trust it.
The shaft is aimed outside of the object ball if you are not using the system correctly. With a camera or a visually linear setup, the contact points are sighted off of the cue ball. I've posted a couple of times how this is not the real world case when we use our eyes stereo-optically.
IOW, with practice and using the eyes in a non-traditional setup, a light bulb comes on. You (collective) see it, but you dismiss the alignment and can't make the thinner cuts. It is very accurate for long, thin cuts. I have a pro friend that uses a similar setup for tough shots.
It's how we use our eyes and experience that allows us to become successful with this aiming method. We're just starting to understand this in general, although we still fight it with the traditional perceptions. It's been around since pool began. I don't listen to critiques from others that don't use these systems. I looked a little deeper and found the answers.
I don't mind if it gets ignored. Those of us that know how to use it will continue to do so and add another arrow to the quiver.
Best,
Mike
If you do what is in the youtube video referenced earlier, thin shots don't work.
Thin shots are shot how I stated earlier. To me geometry doesn't matter, experience at the table is what does. You can easily pick up on stick aiming, just start paying attention with whatever you do now. Anytime you can start using reference points with aiming you will start to improve on shotmaking. Guessing about a ghostball is simply guessing, start getting exact.
And for some people that is enough. Other people like the geometry and can actually use it. This doesn't make one right and one wrong. There is sometimes a problem when people think a system is geometrically correct without looking into the actual geometry.
Then why are some pros talking about variations of it? I think it's old news, but still a formidable weapon in the right hands.
The best way to see how this system can work is to demonstrate how the eyes work together. Look at a near object and then close each eye, one at a time. The object moves in our field of vision, but remains physically static. This use of visual perception is the key to aligning for thinner cuts. With this in mind I figured the rest out for myself. It is a contact point aiming system with some adjustment for typical extreme close shots, extreme english shots, etc., as are all aiming methods.
Most people are rooted in a visually linear approach and don't allow the information from the non-dominant eye to blend and alter their aiming perception. The 800 pound gorilla is sitting in the room, but you don't see it because you're not looking for it. :wink:
I know this is heresy and currently not diagrammed, but it's not an eye trick . Instead, it is a valid method of using the eyes in unison. Not being a popular theory with some posters, this simplistic approach is the benchmark for the system and its many offshoots.
I am currently working on a contact point banking system using some of these principles. You use a contact point on the object ball and don't use the diamonds. In fact you only use the rails to estimate the general angle you want to send the object ball. I know that's painful to hear, but it's like the spot on the wall and mirror image systems, without the props. It's the nutz on controlling the object ball on safeties where you bank the ball. It uses a principle like the stick aiming method.
While everybody was arguing about these systems, I spent my time doing the homework. If this post makes sense to anybody, I may continue. Flame on!
Best,
Mike