Actually, it’s not difficult to have aiming points for the in-between cut angles so actually you can have eight instead of four targets
Still like all aiming systems as you say PJ there is a subjective element
Seeing the contact point on the object ball.
- Thread starter jimstone
- Start date
Still like all aiming systems as you say PJ there is a subjective element
Could you go through the steps of geometric alignment one more time, please?
Paul_#_
Well-known member
The figure could be improved with some notes to get some of us up to speed quicker.
The two figures are of thick and thin cut shots. The Five ball's face is aligned with the cue ball direction with the thinner the shot, the more the Five ball's face turns to the right. The thinner the cut, the more turn to the right, and the more orange showing left of the ball's '5'.
I like an approach using CutShots training balls with their 100-some multi-colored spots as the object ball. It requires photos of the object ball from behind the object ball and from the cue ball. It allows one to see the the visible distance between contact point and ball edge of the cut shot. It also shows the distance from OB middle to contact point.
In left photo below, the object ball sits on a black line pointing at a table pocket. Looking at the back of the object ball, the middle point --- the OB contact point --- is the red circle that sits above a black star. To the red-circle's right to the ball's edge are a green star, a black circle, a red diamond, and barely visible, a black star at ball's edge.
The other photo is taken in front of cue-ball center pointing at the object-ball center. The red-circle contact point is still visible but right of what used to be the ball center. Next to it are the objects that were there before: the green star, and a bit of the black circle, but not visible are the red diamond and black star.
Like with Patrick's figure, one can find the distance from OB center to contact point (blue diamond to blue circle to red circle) and distance of contact point to edge (green star and part of black circle). These estimates point to colored spots on the ball and not just eyeballing spots.
Last edited:
In the long run, I think that's how everyone who turns into a good player does it, especially when they use side spin, but sometimes beginners need a little help.
Sometimes a lot of help. I once was about 15 minutes into the basics of aiming, including ghost balls and a variety of cut shots, and the student piped up, as if just discovering the idea, "So, to make the ball go to the left, I have to hit it on the right?" There's lots of stuff that's obvious to most here that is a secret to many who have played only a little pool.
correct of course but any beginner needs to hit many shots before he can even get to hit close to where he is aiming.
it is a long process to get to just hit where you aim and then know where to hit. few if anyone ever i see work on getting their stroke straight so the cue ball goes where its supposed to.
as can be seen from not being able to make any long shots. as there your stroke that isn't straight magnifies by the distance how much you are off.
it is a long process to get to just hit where you aim and then know where to hit. few if anyone ever i see work on getting their stroke straight so the cue ball goes where its supposed to.
as can be seen from not being able to make any long shots. as there your stroke that isn't straight magnifies by the distance how much you are off.
The amazing part to me was that they were a graduate student in a technical field. And then there was the student who was about to enter college in computer science and was unclear on what an angle was. Not a particular angle, but any angle, as in the opening between two crossing lines.
Not In my experience
The difference with your aiming balls and patrick’s double the distance is double the distance gives you a target to aim at
Your aiming balls you have to aim thru center cue ball and make 2 off center figures (the one on the object ball representing the contact point and corresponding figure on the cue ball) collide….you dont aim at the contact figure
Thats how i understand your aiming balls
Icbw
With aiming, I think "in my experience" means "it seems so to me". Not that it's necessarily inaccurate, just that it's not objective.
pj
chgo
everyone i guess thinks about it differently. but
basically you know the contact point as that is the farthest point on the object ball from the pocket. you cant miss seeing that.
then whatever system or thoughts you use, you aim to hit the part of the cue ball that will reach(touch) that point first.
then adjust for english if using.
soon you walk up and just know. if you have to think about it then you tense up. and in all sports you need to be loose or you cant play well.
just like walking on a wet log. if you just do it you get across fine. if you think about your steps you fall in.
basically you know the contact point as that is the farthest point on the object ball from the pocket. you cant miss seeing that.
then whatever system or thoughts you use, you aim to hit the part of the cue ball that will reach(touch) that point first.
then adjust for english if using.
soon you walk up and just know. if you have to think about it then you tense up. and in all sports you need to be loose or you cant play well.
just like walking on a wet log. if you just do it you get across fine. if you think about your steps you fall in.
I would somewhat agree with this, for "feel" players, but I think methodological players like to have a sort of framework around which they play.
As an extreme example, both types of players can shoot a masse shot--for the sake of this post, consider one with more arc than a 'swerve', but not more than a 45-degree (general angle to the curve). A feel player will literally do that--have an idea (from experience) of how to make the cue ball go where he wants. A methodological player would need to use something like the process where the angle is visualized down, through the cue ball on to the cloth, and then have to have a (practiced) stroke to generate the same angle with the ball.
My point is, a methodological player HAS to "think about it", and therefore does not tense up. And, an experience feel player doesn't necessarily tense up, but I get you point, in the way that is often described as "paralysis by analysis".
Paul_#_
Well-known member
Hmmm, you may have a point. I did not copy the CutShots method correctly. It finds that to make the shot, the cue ball overlaps OB the same amount as the distance between OB-contact point and OB edge. The two contact points make the initial aiming line. The player, then, moves that line parallel toward cue-ball center for aiming cue-ball center at OB.
Other things look similar in Patrick's figure with what is the OB center, the cue-ball center, and that aiming can be determined by double-the distance or double-the-overlap methods. No parallel shift described, however. As to how the contact point on CB is calculated --- it appears to be the closest distance between cue ball and object ball. I do not see a step involving a parallel shift to the cue-ball center.
For what its worth, here's CutShots method:
)