? I am only using center cb.
How are you Aiming cut shots.
- Thread starter DistinguishedBilliards
- Start date
? I am only using center cb.
They are equal at a certain point. Then again, you are using the gb center as one of the reference points, so in that case you're right of course...the angles are never equal. But I am not using the ghostball because it is not visible.
I am using ob center and cp along the diameter/equator of the ob. The angle between these two points from a ccb perspective is the same angle from the contact point line to the aim line, regardless of the distance between the balls.
Last edited:
I think that my diagram above with a short shot shows the two angles -- drawn in green -- are not equal. Have you looked at the diagram?
dquarasr
Registered
What a great discussion!!!
I don't know if it's because I am a relative hack, but I have found some success with visualizing the ghost ball, visualizing its center, then picking a spot on the cloth along that path, between the CB and the GB and aiming CB center to that spot. This works pretty well on shots where there is enough distance between the CB and the OB to actually see the cloth from the standing aiming position. Of course, getting down on the shot, especially for those who are chin-on-the-cue shooters, it's even harder to see the spot on the cloth. But, once down, assuming aligned properly, the GB center comes back to verify the shot line, and to deliver the CB center directly to that spot. This sort of reinforces the path since we have two spots, the center of the imaginary GB, and the spot on the cloth we picked out, to ensure we're on target. Kinda like a check and balance using two data.
Another way to do this without the GB is to visually/virtually/mentally measure half a CB width on the line from the pocket to the back of the OB, note its position on the cloth, and make that the aim point for CB center. Same problem as above, once down all the way the spot on the cloth will not be visible.
These methods break down when the OB is very close to the CB, and I struggle with those shots the most. The way I try to overcome the challenges to these shots is to position my head/eyes as much above the shots as possible, then step back to stance, rather than typical shots where one steps into the shot.
Disclaimer: I'm not a great player; APA SL6, Fargo around 400, so take this with a proverbial grain of salt.
I don't know if it's because I am a relative hack, but I have found some success with visualizing the ghost ball, visualizing its center, then picking a spot on the cloth along that path, between the CB and the GB and aiming CB center to that spot. This works pretty well on shots where there is enough distance between the CB and the OB to actually see the cloth from the standing aiming position. Of course, getting down on the shot, especially for those who are chin-on-the-cue shooters, it's even harder to see the spot on the cloth. But, once down, assuming aligned properly, the GB center comes back to verify the shot line, and to deliver the CB center directly to that spot. This sort of reinforces the path since we have two spots, the center of the imaginary GB, and the spot on the cloth we picked out, to ensure we're on target. Kinda like a check and balance using two data.
Another way to do this without the GB is to visually/virtually/mentally measure half a CB width on the line from the pocket to the back of the OB, note its position on the cloth, and make that the aim point for CB center. Same problem as above, once down all the way the spot on the cloth will not be visible.
These methods break down when the OB is very close to the CB, and I struggle with those shots the most. The way I try to overcome the challenges to these shots is to position my head/eyes as much above the shots as possible, then step back to stance, rather than typical shots where one steps into the shot.
Disclaimer: I'm not a great player; APA SL6, Fargo around 400, so take this with a proverbial grain of salt.
An old buddy of mine, and great player, says he guesses on the cut when the balls are close together. That made me feel pretty good, because I feel the same!
Yes, I've looked at it. It's an overhead perspective that references gb center, but when looking at the shot on a real table, that's not the perspective you see.
In the diagram, if you push that ghostball center all the way to the edge of the ob (the aim point), the cp will look more centered between ob center and ob edge. It doesn't look centered in an overhead drawing when referencing gb center, but from the shooter's perspective it works pretty well just referencing ccb to ob center and ccb to cp, then aiming that same angle/distance to the other side of the cp.
Last edited:
I guess every cut. I just have a lot of information to help that guess.An old buddy of mine, and great player, says he guesses on the cut when the balls are close together. That made me feel pretty good, because I feel the same!
Here's an interesting comparison that shows why a 2D drawing isn't quite accurate when referencing contact points. From the shooter's perspective, the perception of the shot is much different than what is shown in a 2D representation or overhead perspective.
With the 3D and the real shot example here the cb surface is about 2 inches from the ob surface (not as close as in the 2D example, but it wouldn't look much different in 3D). The "double the distance" method is way off when referencing the 2D drawing, but it's just slightly off when viewing a similar shot in reality.
With about 6 inches or more between cb and ob surfaces, the slight angle differences are insignificant because they look equal, regardless of what a 2D drawing shows.
NOTE: The 3D cb is a little too big. I quickly added it because all I had was the cb center point, and that looked weird.
With the 3D and the real shot example here the cb surface is about 2 inches from the ob surface (not as close as in the 2D example, but it wouldn't look much different in 3D). The "double the distance" method is way off when referencing the 2D drawing, but it's just slightly off when viewing a similar shot in reality.
With about 6 inches or more between cb and ob surfaces, the slight angle differences are insignificant because they look equal, regardless of what a 2D drawing shows.
NOTE: The 3D cb is a little too big. I quickly added it because all I had was the cb center point, and that looked weird.
Last edited:
DistinguishedBilliards
Member
On these shots I currently draw a imaginary line across the contact point then estimate the edge of the CB and create a cross with that center line focused on a center CB hit to start. . Then look at my guessed distance to cut/ hit the contact point and see if the timing and throw will create the shot outcome I want and adjust until I feel like I can complete the cut/hit correctly. Once I am more then about 3-4 inches away form the OB I go back to my standard operation to cut a ball. Sound correct? I can't say its perfect every time But i do make these shots often enough.
In your "3D" drawing, the two angles shown look significantly different to me.
Yes, they are different by a couple of degrees. But with a little more distance between the balls, the difference begins to look equal. And that's what matters, what it looks like, not how it draw up on paper from a 2D overhead perspective.
I was just showing the difference in perspectives between a simple overhead view and the reality of standing behind the cb and actually looking at a shot.
DistinguishedBilliards
Member
Hello Everyone,
Todays aiming query. So since I started this thread my cut issue is much more aligned and I would say I have cut my miss window in half on the shots angles we discussed. It still need work and like everything in pool is a ongoing growth path. This morning I was working on just tossing two balls on the table and hitting each in at wide angle margins. When I got to the roughly half tip hit windows above or below a 1/2 ball hit my success rate on pocketing goes down by about lets say 25%. Note my table is 8ft pockets are roughly 4-1/4 corner and 4-1/2 side so you have to be on target. I tried switching around aiming system to experiment. CTE-Poology-ghost ball-fractional aiming. I understand all these system are only to teach your mind how to see the shot naturally anyways. All these yielded about the same result, just for sake of trying something Different, I stood behind the CG and aligned it to the OB only, just so they are perfectly in line. Then I judged the fractional hit/contact point and pivoted myself from there to the shoot line all this while standing. then got down and hit it and my percentages went up on pocketing those cuts. This sounds closer to a aim and pivot system but not quite the same. thoughts.?
Todays aiming query. So since I started this thread my cut issue is much more aligned and I would say I have cut my miss window in half on the shots angles we discussed. It still need work and like everything in pool is a ongoing growth path. This morning I was working on just tossing two balls on the table and hitting each in at wide angle margins. When I got to the roughly half tip hit windows above or below a 1/2 ball hit my success rate on pocketing goes down by about lets say 25%. Note my table is 8ft pockets are roughly 4-1/4 corner and 4-1/2 side so you have to be on target. I tried switching around aiming system to experiment. CTE-Poology-ghost ball-fractional aiming. I understand all these system are only to teach your mind how to see the shot naturally anyways. All these yielded about the same result, just for sake of trying something Different, I stood behind the CG and aligned it to the OB only, just so they are perfectly in line. Then I judged the fractional hit/contact point and pivoted myself from there to the shoot line all this while standing. then got down and hit it and my percentages went up on pocketing those cuts. This sounds closer to a aim and pivot system but not quite the same. thoughts.?
is CG cue ball?
DistinguishedBilliards
Member
are you standing on the green line first
deciding its a quarter ball hit and moving to the blue line and getting down on that line
or
are you standing on the green line and trying to aim thru the blue line
or starting with the green line
move to the red line ...decide thats too full...move to blue line ,,,yes thats it
for sake of discussion lets assume blue line would make the 1 ball into the pocket where the 9 ball is
deciding its a quarter ball hit and moving to the blue line and getting down on that line
or
are you standing on the green line and trying to aim thru the blue line
or starting with the green line
move to the red line ...decide thats too full...move to blue line ,,,yes thats it
for sake of discussion lets assume blue line would make the 1 ball into the pocket where the 9 ball is
DistinguishedBilliards
Member
First that is a great diagram!.
Yes this is exactly what I am inferring. With the green line being my starting point of the shot and the base placement of my stance.
Then pivoting my entire body and stance to the blue line.
Note: I am not holding the green line stance and hitting the blue.
where i get confused about what you are doing
is to get on the blue line you have to move your feet and body alignment
to me thats not a pivot like you would have to do to stay on the green line and try to shoot on the blue line which you state you are not doing
DistinguishedBilliards
Member
I had to go through the motions again as I am at work now. The ball of my right foot was not changing location just rotating some. So I aligned the balls and got down and checked them. Then stood up without moving my right foot "I'm right handed". Then Pivot my right foot to what we are calling the blue line then get down and strike the ball.
if the ball of your foot is on the red line and you swivel/pivot the ball of your foot without your foot moving
then the blue line is off your foot
if you can make balls with your foot off the shot line
good for you
i dont think that many players do it like that