Except to the person(s) you're trying to communicate with.
I think players naturally understand a "half ball hit" to be the result of a "half ball aim".
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Simple aiming system cont...
- Thread starter Mensabum
- Start date
I think players naturally understand a "half ball hit" to be the result of a "half ball aim".
pj
chgo
your use of quotation marks are perfect in this scenario
yes common usage is as you state in bold above
BUT
common usage does not have to be technically correct
just widely understood (even if wrong....
)jmho
Who decides which label is "technically correct"? What are the criteria?your use of quotation marks are perfect in this scenario
yes common usage is as you state in bold above
BUT
common usage does not have to be technically correct
just widely understood (even if wrong....
jmho
In this case I'll stick with "most widely understood".
pj
chgo
After thinking about it again, since I never really gave the idea a solid amount of thought, a halfball aim actually does produce a halfball hit, visually across the width of the ob anyway.
Aiming ccb to ob edge produces a halfball overlap between cb and ob. The actual contact point lands at the 3/4 aim spot on the ob (a quarter from a full hit). However, this contact point (from a ccb perspective) is halfway between ob center and ob edge, well...visually.
So I'd consider that a halfball hit, since the contact point is halfway between center ob and ob edge (visually halfway across from center to edge, though only about 1/3 across the actual equator of that side of the ob).
Overlap vs. contact point... contact point needs additional defining; overlap doesn't.
pj
chgo
All is excellent. Have a new wife and a new job. Hope all is well with you, and same to everyone else here at AZ.
My new job has me traveling a lot, from North Carolina to Maine. I wish I went as far south as Florida, then I could meet up with you while I was there and play some one pocket!
I'll be in Baltimore in a few weeks, and also Boston. So if anyone reads this and happens to live in those areas, shoot me a message and we can hit some while I'm in town.
I read where Bob said a lot of players thought a halfball shot was 45°. I think that's because, due to the shooter's skewed perspective of the shot, a 30° cut shot looks closer to 45°.
Here's an example. This is a 30° cut, but it sure doesn't look like it from behind the cb.
Here's an example. This is a 30° cut, but it sure doesn't look like it from behind the cb.
Last edited:
A little matter of life in the real world got in my way so I have just fully read forward from my last post days ago.
Bob, I have not a clue what you consider an insult. Questioning your terminology just as you questioned mine, certainly! Then again, some of your posts were certainly deeply insulting from your perspective if you saw mine as insulting. I have to conclude that you intended to insult.
If a half ball aim really gave a half ball hit pool would be about a thousand times simpler and all the aiming systems from the beginning of pool would have never been needed. You no doubt have over ten books for every one I have or have ever had, I suggest you dig up the references you requested from me showing "half ball aim" and "half ball hit" being used interchangeably. I don't need every source for over a hundred years, I will be happy with three separate sources, especially since I have acknowledged from the beginning the terms have been misused. I don't know if I own a single how to play pool book at the moment. Hurricanes and feet of black water will cause that.
How much simpler this game would be if a half ball aim gave a half ball hit. A great deal of our early learning curve could be jumped past and raw beginners could at least pocket the shots only involving cue ball, object ball, and pocket.
Hu
Bob, I have not a clue what you consider an insult. Questioning your terminology just as you questioned mine, certainly! Then again, some of your posts were certainly deeply insulting from your perspective if you saw mine as insulting. I have to conclude that you intended to insult.
If a half ball aim really gave a half ball hit pool would be about a thousand times simpler and all the aiming systems from the beginning of pool would have never been needed. You no doubt have over ten books for every one I have or have ever had, I suggest you dig up the references you requested from me showing "half ball aim" and "half ball hit" being used interchangeably. I don't need every source for over a hundred years, I will be happy with three separate sources, especially since I have acknowledged from the beginning the terms have been misused. I don't know if I own a single how to play pool book at the moment. Hurricanes and feet of black water will cause that.
How much simpler this game would be if a half ball aim gave a half ball hit. A great deal of our early learning curve could be jumped past and raw beginners could at least pocket the shots only involving cue ball, object ball, and pocket.
Hu
I agree. But I also believe that most players (and most authors of pool books over the years), might refer to a halfball shot as a halfball "hit" simply because, at the point of impact, half of the cb overlaps half of the ob. The exact contact point of the hit is irrelevant. When the cb "hits" the ob, the cb-ob relationship is a halfball overlap.
And/or because 45° is half of 90° (halfway through the range of possible cut angles).
pj
chgo
So it seems kind of reasonable, but it's still wrong. There is a former world champion and author who stated half-ball = 45-degree cut in their book.
If a half ball hit results in a thirty degree path, then a full ball hit results in a sixty degree path. How can we possibly hit a ball to give greater than a sixty degree path? Impossible!
Or possibly the world champion has a greater understanding of practical pool. If he teaches students that a half ball hit gives a forty-five degree path they will be no less expert on the table because of that belief.
The half ball hit giving a forty-five degree path is no more arbitrary than a half ball hit giving a thirty degree path and is far easier for students to understand. The greatest in the world in at least one point in time is defining a half ball hit as a forty-five degree hit. The rest of the world loses nothing by following that belief.
Hu
Or possibly the world champion has a greater understanding of practical pool. If he teaches students that a half ball hit gives a forty-five degree path they will be no less expert on the table because of that belief.
The half ball hit giving a forty-five degree path is no more arbitrary than a half ball hit giving a thirty degree path and is far easier for students to understand. The greatest in the world in at least one point in time is defining a half ball hit as a forty-five degree hit. The rest of the world loses nothing by following that belief.
Hu
The 30° angle is the departure path the ob takes after being struck by the cb. The 30° is measured from the line/path that the cb travels on it's way to the ob.
The cb gets sent down path A, and upon contact with the ob, the ob is sent down path B. The shot angle has always been defined as the measured angle between path A and B. For a halfball shot, that's 30°, not 45°. On a straight-in shot (full ball hit/overlap), there is no angle difference between cb and ob paths, so it's a 0° shot.
To me, this is the easiest and most sensible way to define shot angles, geometrically. Visually, however, due to the skewed perspective at cb address, shot angles look thinner than they really are. But that doesn't change the fact that aiming for a halfball overlap creates a 30° cut angle, regardless of what the angle looks like from where the shooter stands.
The most obvious example is with slight angle cut shots, like 5° to 10°. The shot can actually "look" like a bigger angle, and so we sometimes aim thinner than needed and overcut it.
Here is the text of their description of a half-ball hit. I would say that as instruction, this is completely broken. It says to shoot a spot-to-spot spot shot as a half ball hit. Another way to say your last point is that some champions have no idea how the balls actually work.
Except the half ball hit (the result of half ball aim) actually does result in a 30° cut angle, not 45°.
Misinformation isn't without consequences, even in pool.
pj
chgo
Uh oh. Let's not try to simplify anything in this game. You'll get eaten alive for the attempt.
Bob, you are cherry picking, taking the part of the author's writing as correct that you like, while saying he is in error other places. Perhaps he is in error both places, or even neither. We can look at pool with different perspectives.
pj, the issue is that neither statement is wrong, just a matter of different perspectives. From a function based perspective it is equally correct or more correct to say that the hit that gives a 45 degree angle is a half ball hit.
The man who won a world championship while saying a half ball hit gives a forty-five degree path has demonstrated his system superior to yours and Bob's unless either of you have won professional world championships I didn't hear about.
Deciding what a half ball hit is based on function as well as other fractional hits is just as valid and possibly more effective than trying to use math. I'm pretty sure that people have been doing just that a lot longer than they have been using math and physics. Marie Antionette was a dedicated cueist. I don't recall her background in math or physics.
I will maintain that a half ball aim doesn't give a half ball hit until the cows come home and a lot longer. If it gave a half ball hit it would give a forty-five degree angle, not thirty.
Bob, champions know very well how the balls actually work. Without meaning to offend, you, me, pj, or Mensabum could all be champions or could have at one time if we understood how balls work as well as the champions. Champions at any sport know how things work. Most will turn up their noses at the math and science because it doesn't benefit their performance.
Hu