Mosconi Aiming

[BC21]

I believe on page 53 he is only showing how you can find the CP by aiming through CCB.
On pages 54 & 55 he then explains how CCB aiming to OB contact point is too thick a hit.

View attachment 515961

He does not mention anything like this. The image you posted is not showing how ccb to cp causes a thick hit. He is showing how the margin for error changes as the ob gets farther from the pocket. The image illustrates how the same faulty aim causes worse results when the ob is farther out. As far as aiming, he specifically says to aim ccb to the ob contact point. He calls the contact point the "point of aim."

Other than the misleading info on aiming, it's a good book.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

From the book.... the bottom paragraph on page 54...

"The lines in Fig. 42 indicate how the ball would
travel to the pocket on a faulty aim - a too-full hit
on the object ball, in this case."

That's what I read when looking at the picture... Fig. 42 on page 55.
------------------------
Perhaps IF his first paragraph was the beginning of that paragraph.



I believe the pic on page 53 points out how find the OB aim point
He then talks about the CB 'influence' of English again, in Fig. 43 & 44.

.

 

[Mkindsv]

Yep, that illustration (page52) is simply showing the cb-ob fractional relationships. The very next page is one of the misleading ones I was talking about that and shows the aim line going to the ob contact point.

Looks to me like this ball goes exactly the way he is lined up basically a half ball shot...

 

[BC21]

Looks to me like this ball goes exactly the way he is lined up basically a half ball shot...

You are kidding, right? Lol. It'll hit the end rail an inch from the pocket.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

.
Brian - I think the way aiming is described in this book is subjective to each reader.
Not going to post a picture but look at Fig. 39. Does he aim CCB to OB aim point?

That's why I think he says to aim through CCB to find the aim point, or OB contact.
After he aims to hit that point on the OB, but certainly not with the center of the CB.

That's why fractional aiming works, if the angle is known, or distances from the CP.

Carl

.

 

[Imac007]

Don’t let perspective fool you.

You're right (if you can accurately visualize the contact points) that it works for shots where the ob is close to the cb. But even at 3ft the ob appears about 27% smaller than the cb (from the cb's perspective), so using a true parallel shift should result in an overcut. That's probably why it takes a lot of practice/table time to get good and consistent with contact point aiming... because at varying distances the two lines (contact point to contact point and ccb to ghostball center) vary in degree of separation, never really being parallel.

Railway tracks may appear to converge but remain parallel. Dr. Dave would join me in disagreeing about the overcut comment. All of his graphs concerning CIT, cut induced throw, reveal that center ball cueing, the case represented here, results in an UNDERCUT path for the object ball. Ball dynamics that prolong contact such as soft speed or a skidding ball, increase that throw, again using center ball. Only sufficient outside english can create an overcut on contact.

I make the cue shift at the cue ball after having superimposed the cue on the CP2CP line. The cue is not at distance, it is right under my nose. Simply shifting parallel by an inch or less is not difficult, especially when looking down directly over the cue.

 

[cookie man]

Yep, that illustration (page52) is simply showing the cb-ob fractional relationships. The very next page is one of the misleading ones I was talking about that and shows the aim line going to the ob contact point.

Looks to me like this ball goes exactly the way he is lined up basically a half ball shot...

Needs a half tip pivot is all lol

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Looks to me like this ball goes exactly the way he is lined up basically a half ball shot...

For a half ball shot the line from the CB's center would point at the OB's edge. In the pic it points at the OB contact point, inside the edge.

Based on the balls' positions the cut looks to me like 40+ degrees.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

Railway tracks may appear to converge but remain parallel. Dr. Dave would join me in disagreeing about the overcut comment. All of his graphs concerning CIT, cut induced throw, reveal that center ball cueing, the case represented here, results in an UNDERCUT path for the object ball. Ball dynamics that prolong contact such as soft speed or a skidding ball, increase that throw, again using center ball. Only sufficient outside english can create an overcut on contact.

I make the cue shift at the cue ball after having superimposed the cue on the CP2CP line. The cue is not at distance, it is right under my nose. Simply shifting parallel by an inch or less is not difficult, especially when looking down directly over the cue.

Put the object 6 or 7 diamonds away from the cb. Visualize a cp2cp line from the left quarter of the cb to the right quarter of the ob. This will produce a 1/2 ball hit. Now line your cue up with this cp2cp line and then parallel shift to ccb. Your aim through ccb will be way outside the edge of the ob. In order to make it work so that your final aim is directed at the ob edge, where it should be, you'll have estimate a tapered/skewed shift. Your tip would move 0.56" to ccb, but the butt end of your cue would have to move about 0.8" in order to have your aim line pointed at the ob edge. That's not parallel.

The parallel shift is about 1° off from being accurate. Meaning instead of needing a true parallel shift, the aim line is actually skewed inward by about 1°. This is why it only works on shots where the balls are within a couple of feet from each other, where being off by 1° doesn't affect it too much. But then again, if the ob is several diamonds from the pocket that little 1° could cause a miss.

The farther the ob is from the cb the more that 1° comes into play by causing overcuts. If you have success with this method on all shots, then you have learned to make it work. You subconsciously account for the 1° taper between the cp2cp line and the final aim line through ccb.

 

[BC21]

.
Brian - I think the way aiming is described in this book is subjective to each reader.
Not going to post a picture but look at Fig. 39. Does he aim CCB to OB aim point?

That's why I think he says to aim through CCB to find the aim point, or OB contact.
After he aims to hit that point on the OB, but certainly not with the center of the CB.

That's why fractional aiming works, if the angle is known, or distances from the CP.

Carl

.

Figure 39 is the only illustration that correctly shows where to aim. He uses this illustration to show how the contact point on the ob never changes, but the contact point on the cb does.

He never says to aim through ccb to find the contact point or point of aim. He says to sight from center pocket through the ob. Then he calls this point the "point of aim" and shows a shot where the aim line through ccb is pointed at this spot, the contact point on the ob.

I doubt Mosconi illustrated the book himself. Whoever did it was probably not a pool player. I think it's a great little book, one of my favorites. It just has a very vague and misleading section on aiming.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Put the object 6 or 7 diamonds away from the cb. Visualize a cp2cp line from the left quarter of the cb to the right quarter of the ob. This will produce a 1/2 ball hit. Now line your cue up with this cp2cp line and then parallel shift to ccb. Your aim through ccb will be way outside the edge of the ob.

Distance and perspective vision don’t change the fact that the CP-to-CP and center-to-edge lines are, in fact, parallel - so if you shift truly parallel from one you’ll be on the other. If you’re not, you didn’t shift parallel.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

Distance and perspective vision don’t change the fact that the CP-to-CP and center-to-edge lines are, in fact, parallel - so if you shift truly parallel from one you’ll be on the other. If you’re not, you didn’t shift parallel.

pj
chgo

Yes, of course the lines are parallel. On paper or from an overhead perspective, the lines and shift can be drawn to prove they are 100% parallel. But in reality we have another dimension, depth, that makes parallel lines appear to taper and converge at a vanishing point on the horizon. When playing pool, we must account for distance and perspective.

A parallel cue shift from directly under your face does not take into account the distance and change in perspective between the cb and the ob. The shift is done from the perspective of your eyes looking down over the cue shaft and the cb.

Here's the reality check..... put the cb a few inches off the head rail and put an ob on the foot rail. Take a pencil and lay it on the head rail and try to line it up so that it points straight through the left edge of the cb all the way toward the left edge of the ob. Do this while standing, not squatted down looking directly down the pencil. Now lay another pencil on the rail and make it look lined up with the right edges of both balls. Due to the fact that the ob appears smaller in the distance (about 0.65" instead of 2.25") the two pencils will not be parallel. It could just be me, my vision. If you line both pencils while squatting down and meticulously eyeballing the line up like scoping a rifle, the pencils will certainly be parallel.

So how do you do a "truly parallel" shift??? I mean, it seems like it won't look parallel, which makes me wonder just how accurately it can really be done. That's why I prefer aiming center cb to where I need it to go. No cue shifts or pivots, just see the line and send the cb down it.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

.
Very much like a tunnel. The tunnel is wide, but the opposite end looks narrow.

.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes, of course the lines are parallel.

That's not what you said here:

In order to make it work so that your final aim is directed at the ob edge, where it should be, you'll have estimate a tapered/skewed shift. Your tip would move 0.56" to ccb, but the butt end of your cue would have to move about 0.8" in order to have your aim line pointed at the ob edge. That's not parallel.

Right, that's not parallel. Therefore it's also not pointed at the OB's edge.

Either you're confusing how things look with how they really are, or I'm too high to be online.

pj <- could be both
chgo

 

[iusedtoberich]

Are you all really trying to decipher a 75 year old aiming book by Mosconi, that probably wasn’t written by him, and he probably didn’t even use any aiming system? Ha ha. Carry on

 

[BC21]

That's not what you said here:

[Color = blue]

Originally Posted by BC21:
In order to make it work so that your final aim is directed at the ob edge, where it should be, you'll have estimate a tapered/skewed shift. Your tip would move 0.56" to ccb, but the butt end of your cue would have to move about 0.8" in order to have your aim line pointed at the ob edge. That's not parallel.

[/color]

Right, that's not parallel. Therefore it's also not pointed at the OB's edge.

Either you're confusing how things look with how they really are, or I'm too high to be online.

pj <- could be both
chgo

Yes, I was talking about making it "look" parallel. Since the ob looks smaller in the distance, it seems like the brain, when shifting the cue from the cp line to the aim line, would have to account for the ob looking smaller than the cb. In other words, making the cue "look" parallel from the head's perspective, for me anyway, is not the same as making it parallel by looking down the shaft like a rifle barrel.

Interesting stuff, but glad I don't thiink about while playing.

 

[BC21]

Are you all really trying to decipher a 75 year old aiming book by Mosconi, that probably wasn’t written by him, and he probably didn’t even use any aiming system? Ha ha. Carry on

Not deciphering, just pointing out how misleading the aiming portion of the book is. And I'm with you on the idea that he probably didn't write it anyway. Well, I believe he wrote it, but it was edited and illustrated by others.

 

[Low500]

--------------------

 

[garczar]

If Mosconi wrote that book then look for my signature on the Mona Lisa.

 

[BC21]

My, my, how times do change.
About a year ago, I wrote several posts concerning the misinformation in Mosconi's book (relating to fractional aiming in shooting pool).
I was laughed at, ridiculed, and treated as if I had slapped the Pope. (by the experts and writers around here)
And now, and now, and now..........uh-oh "then along came jones".
And everything is now okay, objective, open minded, and of course.....very diverse and inclusive.
Life in a poolroom.............:rotflmao1:
https://youtu.be/FNog3Pm_g9M?t=12
View attachment 516089

Haha....nice try. A year ago you said nothing about "misleading" info in Mosconi's book.

I remember well. You incorrectly said his book was about fractional aiming and contained complicated math, and you ignorantly associated my book with it, called it "gobbledygook" or some odd thing like that (still laugh when I think about it, and how wrong you were about Mosconi's material containing fractional aiming info.) Like I told you then....his book has no math, no lessons on the traditional 5-line fractional aiming. There is ONE illustration he used to show cb-ob relationships in a fractional manner, but that's the extent of any fractional aiming in his book. You were wrong then. You are wrong now. :thumbup: