Aiming Systems - The End Justifies the Means

[dr_dave]

Some of these posts are making me think back to the old days of RSB when discussions took place arguing about "accelerating your cue" through the cue ball. The academics said it couldn't be done. The players said they do it.

I personally think it is a good thing to think "accelerate through the ball," especially for certain types of shots (e.g., draw shots). For one thing, it helps make sure you don't decelerate into the ball, which is generally a bad practice.

As far as I am concerned, it is the attempt to do so that gives the positive results.

Well stated. I agree. I'm sorry if that disappoints you, coming from an "academic" (assuming you lump me into that category).

However, I don't think twisting the cue (or even thinking about twisting the cue) during the stroke is good advice for most people. There are better things to think about and do that will have better and more consistent results. For an explanation, see:

NV B.33 - Back-hand swoop and twist ball-turn techniques​

I'm not saying you are suggesting this practice, but it is a recent topic of discussion in this thread for which "positive results" will probably not result for most people, IMO.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
..

When things turn out differently than "science" says they should, my first reaction isn't to assume that I've changed the laws of physics; it's to wonder what I've missed.

pj
chgo

ronscuba:
I'm a science guy too. However, if results are repeatable and current physics science can't explain the results, it's not necessarily voodoo. It could be the scientific explanation has not been found yet

The physics of pool is very well known. There are no surprises to be found in this relatively simple field.

... or the explanation may not be physics based.

Science is not just study of what happens when a robot or perfectly straight stroke hits a ball. Science is not just physics. Psychology and behavior is part of science too. Confidence, perception, human tendencies.

Sure, but because the phyics of pool are so simple and well understood, it's not hard to know where physics ends and psychology begins. That line is already well drawn - we just have to be careful to notice when we cross it.

pj
chgo

 

[ronscuba]

The physics of pool is very well known. There are no surprises to be found in this relatively simple field.


Sure, but because the phyics of pool are so simple and well understood, it's not hard to know where physics ends and psychology begins. That line is already well drawn - we just have to be careful to notice when we cross it.

pj
chgo

I enjoy knowing and understanding the physics explanation, but when physics cannot easily explain the results, I don't obsess about it. I enjoy the positive results. The curiosity of the explanation is still there, but it takes second seat.

There is also the physics of the human stroke and bridge vs. a robot. Physics of pool as stoked by a robot may be well established, but that does not take into account human error or the nature of repeatable human error. In another thread about shaft diameter, it was stated there is no difference between thinner and thicker shafts in relation to forgiveness.
The difference was purely psychological perception.

Maybe there is no difference for a robot. I theorize there is a physics explanation related to human errors and the results with the thinner shafts. Could be stroke, bridge, setup, hitting center errors that are related to the size of the shaft.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...when physics cannot easily explain the results...

I haven't come across any situations in pool where physics can't easily explain the results. What do you have in mind?

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

I personally think it is a good thing to think "accelerate through the ball," especially for certain types of shots (e.g., draw shots). For one thing, it helps make sure you don't decelerate into the ball, which is generally a bad practice.

Well stated. I agree. I'm sorry if that disappoints you, coming from an "academic" (assuming you lump me into that category).

However, I don't think twisting the cue (or even thinking about twisting the cue) during the stroke is good advice for most people. There are better things to think about and do that will have better and more consistent results. For an explanation, see:

NV B.33 - Back-hand swoop and twist ball-turn techniques​

I'm not saying you are suggesting this practice, but it is a recent topic of discussion in this thread for which "positive results" will probably not result for most people, IMO.

Regards,
Dave

Dave,
I have seen wrist-twisters who have mastered the technique to achieve very positive results, which are more difficult to achieve with traditional methods of keeping the wrist straight, or using BHE etc. They play far better than you or I.

They can also keep their wrist straight when needed and do so.

Personally, I think you do an injustice to the pool players of the world by making light of this technique.

Most of the wrist twisters I know, are accomplished players and maybe it is just an advanced technique that some haven't mastered. I do know that these same people play with a straight wrist on most shots but when they need the wrist-twist, they don't hesitate to use it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dave,
I have seen wrist-twisters who have mastered the technique to achieve very positive results, which are more difficult to achieve with traditional methods of keeping the wrist straight, or using BHE etc.

What results? How are they more difficult to achieve with normal methods?

pj
chgo

 

[ronscuba]

I haven't come across any situations in pool where physics can't easily explain the results. What do you have in mind?

pj
chgo

Really ? Seriously ? You can't think of any results that people are experiencing that you can easily explain with your physics theories ? If you can explain the results so easily, why are you involved in so many debates ?

I like science, but for my pool game, I have found sometimes it is best to not concentrate so much on the science explanation and just enjoy watching the balls go in the pocket.

The End Justifies the Means ? For me, sometimes it does.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You can't think of any results that people are experiencing that you can easily explain with your physics theories ?

Apparently you can't either...?

pj
chgo

P.S. They're not "my physics theories".

 

[JB Cases]

The thing is that physics does not "easily" explain results. Someone posted the math behind the ghost ball method. I don't think that the math included all the variables associated with the GB method either.

In all my years in pool and having read dozens of books I have never seen anyone use the math to explain ghostball to a student. If the equation that covers GB were put up on a whiteboard it would be completely meaningless to the practical application of the method.

Why?

Because to use GB properly a person must develop a pretty good judgement for distance from stationary objects. I.e. you must be able to fairly accurately determine without the use of tools where 1.125" is away from the object ball in line with the pocket and have sufficiently sharp visualization skills to fix that area in your mind and align to it. This a purely sensory exercise using no conscious math.

However as a concept to explain the very basic task of how to align the cue stick to the cue ball to send it to the object ball ghost ball is brilliant. No math required, just simple illustration. No one cares or even needs to know the exact geometry in order to use it.

And the same applies to everything that happens on a pool table. Some people just make the balls obey them without knowing the math. Other people enjoy knowing the science and enjoy making sure that everyone else knows the science. For them the worst thing in the world is when someone says, I don't know why this works but it's very effective. Those people want everything broken down into the smallest components so that it can be categorized and filed away. Two ends of the spectrum.

Luckily we live in a world where people can enjoy themselves despite having different views. It's ok to simply love to play pool without knowing the math behind it. It's ok that in reality it all boils down to tip placement and acceleration and yet still be fine with knowing that there is more than one way to get there.

At the end of it all the table stands inert waiting to be played on. The balls only do what you are capable of directing them to do. They don't care how much math you know or don't know. They care about whether you hit them in the right direction or not and whether they will left on the table to be hit again or sent into the pockets for a little rest.

At the end it's the results that matter, not the means. If you use an aiming system and you are a run out player then great. If you use no system and you are a runout player then great. The table and the balls are there for you no matter who you are and what you know.

 

[JoeyA]

What results? How are they more difficult to achieve with normal methods?

pj
chgo

I have seen them make shots using this technique and they claim that they can't do it as well or in some cases not at all using non-twisting motion.

 

[swest]

.
.
.
For them the worst thing in the world is when someone says, I don't know why this works but it's very effective.
.
.
.

No, for them the worst thing in the world is when someone makes a claim that transcends the physics, and then says that it can't be explained with physics...

That's the worst thing in the world. That, and what's in Room 101.

 

[Mikjary]

I once knew a fairly strong player that twisted his cue for all his left and right english. I asked him about it and he said it was because he liked to lock his wrist and not do anything unusual with his stroke. :smile: The irony was he could snap off a hundred on you all the while thinking his stroke was straight!

I occasionally twist the cue for left hand spin because I'm right handed. Couldn't tell you when it's gonna happen. Just does. It's my spasm spin.

Best,
Mike

 

[JB Cases]

No, for them the worst thing in the world is when someone makes a claim that transcends the physics, and then says that it can't be explained with physics...

That's the worst thing in the world. That, and what's in Room 101.

I agree but no one has made any claims here that transcends physics. Assuming that physics governs all the we experience then nothing any of us experiences and talks about transcends physics.

When someone says that something can't be explained with physics then what they really mean is that they can't explain it using physics but it's still effective.

Sometimes we don't really need to know HOW something works in order to use it. In fact I'd go so far as to say that for just about everything we do we don't know how things work.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases:
In all my years in pool and having read dozens of books I have never seen anyone use the math to explain ghostball to a student. If the equation that covers GB were put up on a whiteboard it would be completely meaningless to the practical application of the method.

You misunderstand what's meant by "physics can easily explain everything that happens in pool". It means simple physics can account for all the physical interactions, not that everybody can easily understand it that way (obviously, given the many misunderstandings here).

What it usually means here on AzB is "what you think happened is physically impossible; here's a more likely explanation". I don't believe the usefulness of knowing what's real and what's not needs explaining.

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

"the map (of physics) is not the territory" (of understanding)

I agree but no one has made any claims here that transcends physics. Assuming that physics governs all the we experience then nothing any of us experiences and talks about transcends physics.

When someone says that something can't be explained with physics then what they really mean is that they can't explain it using physics but it's still effective.

Sometimes we don't really need to know HOW something works in order to use it. In fact I'd go so far as to say that for just about everything we do we don't know how things work.

I really can't relate to the obsession with physics....it's like being obsessed with proving that everything we eat has ingredients, but never wanting to learn how to cook or even taste the food. "the map (of physics) is not the territory" (of understanding)... anyway, to each their own way :wink:

 

[JB Cases]

You misunderstand what's meant by "physics can easily explain everything that happens in pool". It means simple physics can account for all the physical interactions, not that everybody can easily understand it that way (obviously, given the many misunderstandings here).

What it usually means here on AzB is "what you think happened is physically impossible; here's a more likely explanation". I don't believe the usefulness of knowing what's real and what's not needs explaining.

pj
chgo

Fair enough. Hopefully Dr. Dave will give us a link but I seem to remember one really helpful video where he and I think Bob Jewett were doing some experiments on rail compression and the net result was that the actual motion was very different from conventional theory on what was happening. I remember seeing the video and saying wow that's really good to know this. IIRC it had to do with banking or kicking and the idea that a hard shot would ALWAYS shorten the path while a softer shot would ALWAYS lengthen the path. The results however showed that this was not the case if I remember it right.

I used to tell people to jump as if they were going to drive the tip straight through the slate. It was my experience when teaching people to use the jump cue that many were shortening their stroke considerably. I figured out that this was because they were afraid of damaging the cloth (good thing to be afraid of). But I also knew that if they would attempt to follow through as if it were a normal shot that the cue would actually never touch the cloth. (assuming a proper hit and not a miscue)

Thus I had to use a method of explanation that seemed to defy physics and logic since it's impossible to follow through the slate and no one wants to wreck the cloth. But by asking them to suspend their notions of what is and isn't possible I was able to get them to lengthen their stroke sufficiently enough to perform jump shots properly. They were pleasantly surprised to find that it worked and no cloth was hurt.

 

[CJ Wiley]

a perfect dimension of sight, feel and sound

I enjoy knowing and understanding the physics explanation, but when physics cannot easily explain the results, I don't obsess about it. I enjoy the positive results. The curiosity of the explanation is still there, but it takes second seat.

There is also the physics of the human stroke and bridge vs. a robot. Physics of pool as stoked by a robot may be well established, but that does not take into account human error or the nature of repeatable human error. In another thread about shaft diameter, it was stated there is no difference between thinner and thicker shafts in relation to forgiveness.
The difference was purely psychological perception.

Maybe there is no difference for a robot. I theorize there is a physics explanation related to human errors and the results with the thinner shafts. Could be stroke, bridge, setup, hitting center errors that are related to the size of the shaft.

There is a perfect dimension for your stoke, bridge, setup, shot speed, cue angle, etc.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CJ:
I really can't relate to the obsession with physics....it's like being obsessed with proving that everything we eat has ingredients, but never wanting to learn how to cook or even taste the food.

I hear ya, man. Personally, I don't even like to know what's in my food. Knowing all those extraneous details just distracts from the pure pleasure of eating. The best cooks pay no attention to ingredients, right?

pj
chgo

 

[jmurphy]

Dave,
I have seen wrist-twisters who have mastered the technique to achieve very positive results, which are more difficult to achieve with traditional methods of keeping the wrist straight, or using BHE etc. They play far better than you or I.

They can also keep their wrist straight when needed and do so.

Personally, I think you do an injustice to the pool players of the world by making light of this technique.

Most of the wrist twisters I know, are accomplished players and maybe it is just an advanced technique that some haven't mastered. I do know that these same people play with a straight wrist on most shots but when they need the wrist-twist, they don't hesitate to use it.

I watched a Buddy Hall Video and twisting his wrist to apply "BHE" on the last stroke is what he teaches.

 

[lfigueroa]

I hear ya, man. Personally, I don't even like to know what's in my food. Knowing all those extraneous details just distracts from the pure pleasure of eating. The best cooks pay no attention to ingredients, right?

pj
chgo

We've come along way from an open fire and spit (well, some of us have). Nowadays, guys like Alton Brown have popularized science in the kitchen so that cooks understand the processes better and make the outcomes more predictable. If you really want to get into this there are books like "The Science of Cooking" by Peter Barham that explains "how a practical understanding of physics and chemistry can improve culinary performance…"

IOW, understanding the science will not harm you but it sure can make you better. Not that I would expect everyone involved in this discussion to understand that.

Lou Figueroa