Nearest to farthest -- how bad is it?

[Bob Jewett]

Shinola. ...

Nope. Maybe you don't know the reference: "He can't tell the difference between $#!T and Shinola." In this reference, "Shinola" is not the luxury goods company that was founded about a decade ago, but rather refers to a brand of "shoe polish" which is a waxy substance people used to rub on their shoes back when shoes were made of leather in order to make them look better and to protect them from the elements. Here is an example excellent product from the company:



How soon will all the shoe shine stands disappear now that Shinola is gone?

I suppose the reference could be transferred now to the new company since it seems to sell high-quality goods.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The system needs some corn for texture though.

EEuuwwwh! Gross.

 

[Bob Jewett]

For those who did not follow the description in words, here is a little help. I have marked the nearest point to the pocket on the cue ball and the farthest point from the pocket on two object balls. One shot is a straight in and the other is a cut.



The lines are just there to show how the dots got on the balls.

 

[garczar]

And I'm just saying if you want to understand this sort of question about aiming systems or anything else, it will be better for you to work it out on your own. My description was complete enough, as PJ pointed out.

Try to come up with your own drawing. I'll post a drawing in four days.

WTF????? What's with all the subterfuge??? FOUR days????? Just spill it Professor.

 

[Imac007]

A step is missing in description

It's got nothing to do with Joe Tucker or parallel aiming. I'm not asking about other systems. I'm asking about the system I described above.

Can anyone figure out how good or bad it is? Did anyone understand my description or should I post a drawing?

The description given will only even hit the ob directly if the balls are within a balls width of straight.

 

[BC21]

On paper it looks like it would work on close up shots, at about any angle, as long as the cb and ob are no more than a couple of inches from each other. The shots come off thicker and thicker as the cb gets farther away from the ob.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The description given will only even hit the ob directly if the balls are within a balls width of straight.

It will hit the OB every time - too much of it, in fact.

It will only make the OB when they're nearly straight.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

On paper it looks like it would work on close up shots, at about any angle, as long as the cb and ob are no more than a couple of inches from each other. The shots come off thicker and thicker as the cb gets farther away from the ob.

Yes, because the farther they are apart the greater the difference in their angles to the pocket and the greater the offset between their aim points.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

The description given will only even hit the ob directly if the balls are within a balls width of straight.

Which step do you think is missing in the description?

I have marked the spots on the balls in the diagram. The third step was:

Send those two spots directly at each other.

I'm having a very hard time seeing how the cue ball will avoid hitting the object ball directly.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Drew a blue line between the red points. Found the center of the cue ball and marked it with another red dot. Drew red line parallel to desired blue contact point line past the cue ball to show aiming line. Looks like a little more than a half ball hit on a 60* shot.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Nope. Maybe you don't know the reference: "He can't tell the difference between $#!T and Shinola." In this reference, "Shinola" is not the luxury goods company that was founded about a decade ago, but rather refers to a brand of "shoe polish" which is a waxy substance people used to rub on their shoes back when shoes were made of leather in order to make them look better and to protect them from the elements. Here is an example excellent product from the company:

View attachment 553320

How soon will all the shoe shine stands disappear now that Shinola is gone?

I suppose the reference could be transferred now to the new company since it seems to sell high-quality goods.

Thank you. I was thinking "shinola" meant "okay but shined up to make look better than it is". I do not know the name for the "closest points" system.

 

[West Point 1987]

Thanks for this...to answer the OP, I don't know who's book this is from or what it's called, but I'm so glad I tripped over this. I tried it last night, and it worked very well for me--on all angles and distances. I'm sure I unconsciously compensated on various angles, but for me it fixed an alignment issue that was making me hit everything too fat months now. I tried for a long time to fix it mechanically by adjusting my stance and shoulder angle, to no avail. This technique straightened me right out! :thumbup:

 

[Bob Jewett]

In fact the cut angle on the 2 ball is 75 degrees. This is easy to measure with a protractor or the drawing system I use for these diagrams. Here is the correct way to line the shot up on the 2 ball. Instead of sending the red dot on the cue ball at the red dot on the object ball (nearest to farthest), you should send the green dot on the cue ball towards the red dot on the 2 ball.



Line A and line B are parallel and go through the centers of their respective balls. Sending green to red is the same system shown in Mosconi's second book and in Byrne, and in .... It sends contact point towards contact point.

Let's do a thought experiment. This is much easier than doing a real experiment especially since some of us don't have access to tables right now.

Consider the shot on the 2 ball. Move the cue ball and the 2 ball together away from the pocket along the A and B lines, moving each ball the same amount. The cut angle will remain the same -- 75 degrees. If you don't believe this, make a drawing and measure it.

A better way to do the thought experiment which is much harder to do on the real table is to just move the pocket away along the A line without moving either ball. If you do that instead, I hope it is immediately clear to you that the cut angle doesn't change. Please get comfortable with the fact that the cut angle doesn't change and Mosconi's system still tells you to drive the green dot at the red dot before reading on.

Good. Mosconi's system is staying constant for a constant cut angle (but with increasing distance to the pocket) but what is happening to the nearest-to-farthest system? As the pocket gets farther away, the red dot on the cue ball will move around the cue ball towards the green dot. If you don't believe this, draw out a diagram with a few new locations of the pocket along the A line.

This means that as the pocket gets farther away, the nearest-to-farthest system gives less error on the cut angle. Unfortunately, the pocket is farther away, so you likely miss the shot by more and more distance even though the angle is getting better. When the pocket is infinitely far away, the two systems give the same, correct answer. Such a large table is not practical.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Thanks for this...to answer the OP, I don't know who's book this is from or what it's called, but I'm so glad I tripped over this. I tried it last night, and it worked very well for me--on all angles and distances. I'm sure I unconsciously compensated on various angles, but for me it fixed an alignment issue that was making me hit everything too fat months now. I tried for a long time to fix it mechanically by adjusting my stance and shoulder angle, to no avail. This technique straightened me right out! :thumbup:

Well, no, I don't think so. As I pointed out in the response just above, as the shot is longer with the same relationship between the cue ball and 2 ball, the red dot will move on the cue ball. If you actually use the system, it can't work over a range of pocket distances.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong in the way you see shots if a totally broken and wrong system makes you shoot better. Maybe the system is so broken that your subconscious takes over and puts the ball in the hole.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

I can see how moving the balls as a 'block' down table will increase the accuracy, but if you move the cue ball farther away along the center to center line the accuracy will decrease.

I'm pretty sure all the posters considered the latter and not the former.

 

[duckie]

In fact the cut angle on the 2 ball is 75 degrees. This is easy to measure with a protractor or the drawing system I use for these diagrams. Here is the correct way to line the shot up on the 2 ball. Instead of sending the red dot on the cue ball at the red dot on the object ball (nearest to farthest), you should send the green dot on the cue ball towards the red dot on the 2 ball.

View attachment 553418

Line A and line B are parallel and go through the centers of their respective balls. Sending green to red is the same system shown in Mosconi's second book and in Byrne, and in .... It sends contact point towards contact point.

Let's do a thought experiment. This is much easier than doing a real experiment especially since some of us don't have access to tables right now.

Consider the shot on the 2 ball. Move the cue ball and the 2 ball together away from the pocket along the A and B lines, moving each object ball the same amount. The cut angle will remain the same -- 75 degrees. If you don't believe this, make a drawing and measure it.

A better way to do the thought experiment which is much harder to do on the real table is to just move the pocket away along the A line without moving either ball. If you do that instead, I hope it is immediately clear to you that the cut angle doesn't change. Please get comfortable with the fact that the cut angle doesn't change and Mosconi's system still tells you to drive the green dot at the red dot before reading on.

Good. Mosconi's system is staying constant for a constant cut angle (but with increasing distance to the pocket) but what is happening to the nearest-to-farthest system? As the pocket gets farther away, the red dot on the cue ball will move around the cue ball towards the green dot. If you don't believe this, draw out a diagram with a few new locations of the pocket along the A line.

This means that as the pocket gets farther away, the nearest-to-farthest system gives less error on the cut angle. Unfortunately, the pocket is farther away, so you likely miss the shot by more and more distance even though the angle is getting better. When the pocket is infinitely far away, the two systems give the same, correct answer. Such a large table is not practical.

Never mind, I see my error in thinking......

 

[sixpack]

Well, no, I don't think so. As I pointed out in the response just above, as the shot is longer with the same relationship between the cue ball and 2 ball, the red dot will move on the cue ball. If you actually use the system, it can't work over a range of pocket distances.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong in the way you see shots if a totally broken and wrong system makes you shoot better. Maybe the system is so broken that your subconscious takes over and puts the ball in the hole.

There is some ambiguity about when you look at the spot on the CB closest to the pocket. Maybe in some people's mind it the closest point to the pocket at the time the CB contacts the OB. In other words, just a way of visualizing CPTCP. Then it would be helpful for someone who was hitting balls too thick.

 

[Bob Jewett]

There is some ambiguity about when you look at the spot on the CB closest to the pocket. Maybe in some people's mind it the closest point to the pocket at the time the CB contacts the OB. In other words, just a way of visualizing CPTCP. Then it would be helpful for someone who was hitting balls too thick.

If someone interprets the description of the system that way, I think they are reading into the description something that is not there to make it fit reality.

I think there is a lot of that going on when people confront broken systems. "Surely the author was saying ..." No, he wasn't. He really said the broken stuff. And stop calling me Shirley.:grin:

 

[Bob Jewett]

I can see how moving the balls as a 'block' down table will increase the accuracy, ...

It will increase the angle accuracy but I'm not sure it will decrease how many inches you miss the pocket by. I haven't worked that out yet. (And maybe it's not worth working on.)

 

[sixpack]

If someone interprets the description of the system that way, I think they are reading into the description something that is not there to make it fit reality.

I think there is a lot of that going on when people confront broken systems. "Surely the author was saying ..." No, he wasn't. He really said the broken stuff. And stop calling me Shirley.:grin:

Yeah, I get it. I was just thinking of how when I tried to figure out CTE I was mostly unbiased by the actual system so I invented something that works very well for me. Doesn't work for anyone else...

The biggest flaw with the system you described is that the harder to visualize the shot the worse this system is. Which is the opposite of useful.