Simple aiming system cont...
- Thread starter Mensabum
- Start date
There is a separate section for "aiming systems", this one is already well known. Joe tucker has a video talking about this contact point of lining up and also sold a set of balls made to line up the numbers (locations) of the two balls.
Please allow me time to get some pics posted of exactly what I'm talking about. I'll head to the hall tonight and set this up.
I apologize for not doing this to begin with. Just bcuz I understand it completely doesn't mean others will, considering all the incorrect comparison/assumptions I see. Obviously my description must have been terrible. I will fix that. My aim points are mathematically correct.
Your description has been clear from the beginning - it's simply not "mathematically precise". It can be pretty close for straighter shots, but farther off for greater cuts. Of course an aiming system doesn't have to be mathematically precise in order to work for you - you can learn to “see” it as needed.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Your aim points cannot connect is the rebuttal point. What's working has to be you adjusting to the correct alignment.
I have placed pieces of black tape on the balls where the lines mark. As long as those 2 points are combined, the shot goes. You can see how the lines go to the outer part of each ball. The shot line of course is the center line.
I don't know how to explain it any better than that. There's no compensation or any of that. It's a perfect point on each ball. Hope this helps. If it still doesn't make sense or work for you, my apologies. Was only trying to help.
Attachments
Don't knock this unless you've tried it on a table. Critiquing by a drawing isn't gonna help anyone. Just try it. You'll see what I mean and like it.
That's all I can say.
For those of you who get this and/or have tried it, use it w my blessing. It will increase your pocketing % overnight. Imo, the easiest, most accurate system out there. Take what you can use and leave the rest. lol.
I'm not a very good teacher and wish I would have prepared this better B4 posting, but it was a spur of the moment thing for me. I was surprised at all the confusion and misinterpretation of what is a very simple concept... 2 lines, 2 points. Put em together and pocket the ball. Simple. I can't put it any better than that.
Perhaps this is a good example of why old dawgs don't give away their tips and secrets. Some people won't believe anything and others simply want to criticize. I'm not forcing this on anyone. Use it or lose it. Whatever works for you.
I think you are confusing not understanding with just thinking it's wrong.
If you take the cue ball and put it behind object ball (touching) in line with where you want to hit in the pocket, would that be the contact point you're looking for? You would get that if you made your line from the cue ball parallel with your line from the object ball to the pocket.
By making your line from the cb go to the pocket, the contact points will cause under cutting a little with a slight cut and under cutting a lot for for sharper cuts.
I'd think it would be more helpful if the system were off in the other direction a little to account for cut induced throw. Far as I can tell, your system would make that worse.
But with aiming, whatever works for you is a good thing.
Last edited:
Oikawa
Well-known member
If I understood your explanation properly, it would not be mathemathically correct. Correct me if I got it wrong, but given your instructions, wouldn't I aim this shot into the orange line, causing the OB to go way off towards the red arrow instead of the pocket?
For reference, this is what the same shot would look like if diagrammed with the typical way of doing parallel line contact point aiming, which is mathemathically correct as a simplification of a pool shot, ignoring all other variables (throw, spin etc.)
For reference, this is what the same shot would look like if diagrammed with the typical way of doing parallel line contact point aiming, which is mathemathically correct as a simplification of a pool shot, ignoring all other variables (throw, spin etc.)
Taking a look at this, I see lots of inside english. This will deflect the rock into compliance.
joe's system does not use this method to match the contact points
joe uses the accepted parralel lines
At the end of the day we're discussing a visualization process to achieve contact-point-to-contact-point alignment. There are multiple ways to approach this.
So another interesting tidbit is that when you're down on the shot (if your vision center is correct), centered at the contact point you should see an equal amount of the object ball overlap that contact-point to the right as you see cueball overlap that contact-point to the left. (Some people aim using equal overlap entirely).
You can visualize the shot similar to Mosconi’s parallel lines approach. This is what it looks like in my mind when I’m standing.
And this is what it looks like when you're down.
Talking about Mosconi's parallel line approach, when you get down on the shot it should also look like this (equal overlap)...
And like this when you're down on the shot.
It would be interesting if Mensabum finds that equal overlap visualization also manifests with his approach. And if it does, I wonder if that's the missing ingredient in terms of an non-deliberate adjustment that may be occurring when getting down.
So another interesting tidbit is that when you're down on the shot (if your vision center is correct), centered at the contact point you should see an equal amount of the object ball overlap that contact-point to the right as you see cueball overlap that contact-point to the left. (Some people aim using equal overlap entirely).
You can visualize the shot similar to Mosconi’s parallel lines approach. This is what it looks like in my mind when I’m standing.
And this is what it looks like when you're down.
Talking about Mosconi's parallel line approach, when you get down on the shot it should also look like this (equal overlap)...
And like this when you're down on the shot.
It would be interesting if Mensabum finds that equal overlap visualization also manifests with his approach. And if it does, I wonder if that's the missing ingredient in terms of an non-deliberate adjustment that may be occurring when getting down.
Last edited:
Also in terms of why this is geometrically inaccurate, I made these drawings illustrating a back cut. I made the ghost ball (with contact point) literally by copy/pasting the cueball and moving the circle/star until they aligned with the object ball's contact point. The alignments overlap, meaning these two points cannot line up on this shot. The cueball will contact the object ball before those "assumed contact points" get a chance to meet up.
And I can simulate where by copying another ghost ball and moving it back (keeping the original assumed contact points in alignment) until the ghost ball intersects the object ball with no overlap. Then I unearth where the actual contact point will occur (yellow star)
And I can simulate where by copying another ghost ball and moving it back (keeping the original assumed contact points in alignment) until the ghost ball intersects the object ball with no overlap. Then I unearth where the actual contact point will occur (yellow star)
dquarasr
Registered
This is how I see it as well. In the drawing in post number 1 of this thread, contact point to contact point will result in a too-fat hit on the shot to the side pocket. It still might go at that distance but I don’t see that happening with more distance between the OB and the pocket.
This might be a good way to get “in the ballpark” to allow the subconscious to make the appropriate adjustment but as an absolute aiming system I think it’s woefully inaccurate.
This is a good depiction of the equatorial ellipse which allows you to see the contact point on the cue ball.
Here's how it works with a cue ball:
You can visualize the exit point on the object ball and copy the same thing onto the cueball. Drawing a line from this point through the center of the ball - this is constant [ the center of the ball will appear in the same place regardless of viewing angle ] to the far edge of the ellipse will give you the "dark side" contact point.
I look at the cue ball as a circle for this visualization. The contact points will appear as the three red dots and tilted yellow line in the diagram. Once you determine the far point, connect that point with the object ball point.
Last edited:
oscargrouch
Active member
How could there ever be unequal amounts of overlap? Your brain already has to adjust to see equal overlap since one ball is closer than the other, but two things overlapping each other - how could it overlap more one way than the other?At the end of the day we're discussing a visualization process to achieve contact-point-to-contact-point alignment. There are multiple ways to approach this.
So another interesting tidbit is that when you're down on the shot (if your vision center is correct), centered at the contact point you should see an equal amount of the object ball overlap that contact-point to the right as you see cueball overlap that contact-point to the left. (Some people aim using equal overlap entirely).
You can visualize the shot similar to Mosconi’s parallel lines approach. This is what it looks like in my mind when I’m standing.
And this is what it looks like when you're down.
Talking about Mosconi's parallel line approach, when you get down on the shot it should also look like this (equal overlap)...
And like this when you're down on the shot.
It would be interesting if Mensabum finds that equal overlap visualization also manifests with his approach. And if it does, I wonder if that's the missing ingredient in terms of an non-deliberate adjustment that may be occurring when getting down.
oscargrouch
Active member
Looking at where the black tape is on the cue ball, it's clearly not at the point where a line from the pocket through the center of the cue ball would land. And I think that's what most people understood you to be saying.
Perhaps you instinctively know that the photo is an edge-of-cueball hit vs. a meat-of-cueball hit (for a fuller shot), and then the system of the line-to-the-pocket somehow gives you more precision of exactly where on the edge of the cue ball the contact point is.
I don't know...just a theory.
They equally overlap over the contact point. That needs to be the “correct contact point”. If they equally overlap over the “wrong contact point” then they will unequal overlap over what should have been the “correct contact point” and in turn it will not even contact that point.