Too bad there is no such system.
pj
chgo
Aiming systems
- Thread starter daveb
- Start date
Too bad there is no such system.
pj
chgo
av84fun said:
Tomorrow I'll post a .jpg of the diagram then you will be able to see it for sure.
In the mean time maybe you can tell me how, using your system, can you tell what part of the pocket you are going to use. You know, when you need to pocket the ball in the left side of the pocket or the right side of the pocket. Maybe it is a shot going down the long rail the you need to cheat a little and catch the rail just a little bit? How do you manage these situations?
JR
CaptainJR..."In the mean time maybe you can tell me how, using your system, can you tell what part of the pocket you are going to use. You know, when you need to pocket the ball in the left side of the pocket or the right side of the pocket. Maybe it is a shot going down the long rail the you need to cheat a little and catch the rail just a little bit? How do you manage these situations?"
By feel/experience JR. All aiming systems (that I am aware of) are baseline systems from which adjustments must be made for various cuing issues.
My point is that I would rather estimate those adjustments from a known baseline than not having a baseline.
In addition, the core of the system is the use of the cue tip in reference to specific and highly recognizable points on the CB. That is not a universally adopted technique but one that I believe has significant merit.
I would point out that in Mike Pages EXCELLENT video series on the Half Ball Hit, he refers to that method and points out 4 CB parts that exactly conform to 4 of my TPs.
Further, I am reasonably sure that he would agree that there are more highly recognizable spots in addition to the 4 he mentioned.
The BIG ISSUE is..."How many highly recognizable TPs are there in relation to the number needed to pocket X% of the shots we face on the table.
Certainly, the percent is not 100 but I guess my response would be "So what?"
The benefit of any system would be to measurably improve the user's previous shot making percentage...not to make it perfect.
Regards,
Jim
By feel/experience JR. All aiming systems (that I am aware of) are baseline systems from which adjustments must be made for various cuing issues.
My point is that I would rather estimate those adjustments from a known baseline than not having a baseline.
In addition, the core of the system is the use of the cue tip in reference to specific and highly recognizable points on the CB. That is not a universally adopted technique but one that I believe has significant merit.
I would point out that in Mike Pages EXCELLENT video series on the Half Ball Hit, he refers to that method and points out 4 CB parts that exactly conform to 4 of my TPs.
Further, I am reasonably sure that he would agree that there are more highly recognizable spots in addition to the 4 he mentioned.
The BIG ISSUE is..."How many highly recognizable TPs are there in relation to the number needed to pocket X% of the shots we face on the table.
Certainly, the percent is not 100 but I guess my response would be "So what?"
The benefit of any system would be to measurably improve the user's previous shot making percentage...not to make it perfect.
Regards,
Jim
CaptainJR said:
av84fun said:
There it is. You say, "By feel/experience" and you talk about "baseline systems" for "various cuing issues". But in posts above you insisted that we were only talking about center ball when it suited your purpose.
Well, above this I say your system was not nearly accurate enough and you said it was.
By your own words you adjust for accuracy to one or the other side of the pocket by feel/experience. With a contact point system you can aim for exactly where you want the ball to go in the pocket.
Thus your cue tip system is not nearly as accurate as a contact point system.
Further more here is the .jpg I was talking about.
As you can see there are six balls overlapping. Each is an object ball position used one at a time. Using the cue ball position shown, make each ball in the lower left hand corner. Yup, it is a tough shot. Pick one, mark it and make it then put the next one down. Pick which ever one you want to start with, say how you would make that one, then say the difference in your aiming to make the others in comparison. These shots may look similar but I assure none of these six shots can be aimed the same.
I've ask this twice before and you didn't answer. Assuming that you will use some other way to get out of answering again, because I don't think you have an answer other than by feel, I'll say again that using a contact point you can accurately aim each of these shots. You or I may or may not be good enough to execute but with a contract point we could know that we were aimed correctly. Using any of these tip, half ball or other approximate aiming systems you are only guessing. (edit, 'only guessing' sounds a little harsh. I'll say 'At best only an educated guess'.)
Attachments
Last edited:
Actually, your response was "Is too!" - glad you're starting to make some sense.
pj
chgo
page 15 coming right up
CaptainJR
You seem confused. Let me try to help you. The BASELINE is what works with a center ball hit. To the extent that you vary from a center ball hit, then well know forces such as curve, squirt and throw come into play. I never said anything to the contrary.
Are you aware of any aiming system that does not require adjustments for various non-center ball hits?
If you are referring to a CP derived geometrically...no you cannot. Read up on collision-induced throw, spin-induced throw, squirt and curve.
Well, they don't look similar to me and I can't explain why they may look similar to you. But in any event, that shot shouldn't be played in the first place except in an act of desperation by a player deficient in safety play skills.
Nevertheless, the shot you described does not even remotely conform to any shot position dealt with in the system. You have previously barged in with similar questions that demonstrate that you have not read or simply don't understand the methods described in the system.
The limitation of the system is 2 diamonds from the intended pocket which accommodates a huge percentage of the rational shots in the game. Your diagram is 3 diamonds from the intended left corner pocket.
I only pointed out offhandedly that the inside edge of the tip to the outside edge of the ball SEEMS to be reasonably effective. But I spend zero time practicing shots that will come up so rarely.
But just for grins, I just shot 3 each of the shots from the first and last OB positions in your diagram and made 2 of 3 of them both.
First, I don't know why you comment in such an antagonistic fashion since my posts to you have been respectful. Two, I have NEVER suggested that a contact point system is inaccurate...at least for people who understand that adjustments for cueing issues and/or for CIT must be made from a geometric CP system...so I don't know why you seem to have your shorts all in a bunch.
Aim any way ya want pardner.
(-:
You seem confused. Let me try to help you. The BASELINE is what works with a center ball hit. To the extent that you vary from a center ball hit, then well know forces such as curve, squirt and throw come into play. I never said anything to the contrary.
Are you aware of any aiming system that does not require adjustments for various non-center ball hits?
If you are referring to a CP derived geometrically...no you cannot. Read up on collision-induced throw, spin-induced throw, squirt and curve.
Well, they don't look similar to me and I can't explain why they may look similar to you. But in any event, that shot shouldn't be played in the first place except in an act of desperation by a player deficient in safety play skills.
Nevertheless, the shot you described does not even remotely conform to any shot position dealt with in the system. You have previously barged in with similar questions that demonstrate that you have not read or simply don't understand the methods described in the system.
The limitation of the system is 2 diamonds from the intended pocket which accommodates a huge percentage of the rational shots in the game. Your diagram is 3 diamonds from the intended left corner pocket.
I only pointed out offhandedly that the inside edge of the tip to the outside edge of the ball SEEMS to be reasonably effective. But I spend zero time practicing shots that will come up so rarely.
But just for grins, I just shot 3 each of the shots from the first and last OB positions in your diagram and made 2 of 3 of them both.
First, I don't know why you comment in such an antagonistic fashion since my posts to you have been respectful. Two, I have NEVER suggested that a contact point system is inaccurate...at least for people who understand that adjustments for cueing issues and/or for CIT must be made from a geometric CP system...so I don't know why you seem to have your shorts all in a bunch.
Aim any way ya want pardner.
(-:
Those shots are DEAD IN!
Hello, Mr. av84fun.
I just shot that proposed lineup twice and the balls all went in the middle of the pocket except for the first go-around I missed 1 & 3 because of just plain "mis-hitting" which I do from time to time. And I missed the 6th one the second time for the same reason. I re shot each of the misses and made them. I also scratched twice in the same pocket following the OB in but that was not part of the trial. I would think that rather than TRY to find an area that balls can't be made from perhaps the naysayers might work on their position.
I don't know you personally but it sure seems like you came up with a simple AND ACCURATE system to me and I'm certainly willing to try it on my bad days when the pocket doesn't seem to be where I'm lined up.
What's the problem with this System? It's offered to those who want it. I do. I want to continue to learn different ways to play. Whether it's jumping, B.E., inside or outside spin, speed, banking, kicking or whatever. I think it's great that you volunteered your system to those who want to use it or it's deletable by others who are happy with what they have and know.
I think that Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Hal Houle and the others that my aged mind can't recall now who write in different things to try and those of you that furnish or bring to our attention the Internet videos that are so interesting and helpful should be thanked, not vilified (never used that word before).
All I know is that I would rather read something positive and helpful rather than someone sitting on the sidelines trying to pick errors out of the air and hide their own problems.
Thank you again and I hope the response was more positive than negative and that you will contine to post your ideas.
Jerry.
Hello, Mr. av84fun.
I just shot that proposed lineup twice and the balls all went in the middle of the pocket except for the first go-around I missed 1 & 3 because of just plain "mis-hitting" which I do from time to time. And I missed the 6th one the second time for the same reason. I re shot each of the misses and made them. I also scratched twice in the same pocket following the OB in but that was not part of the trial. I would think that rather than TRY to find an area that balls can't be made from perhaps the naysayers might work on their position.
I don't know you personally but it sure seems like you came up with a simple AND ACCURATE system to me and I'm certainly willing to try it on my bad days when the pocket doesn't seem to be where I'm lined up.
What's the problem with this System? It's offered to those who want it. I do. I want to continue to learn different ways to play. Whether it's jumping, B.E., inside or outside spin, speed, banking, kicking or whatever. I think it's great that you volunteered your system to those who want to use it or it's deletable by others who are happy with what they have and know.
I think that Dr. Dave, Bob Jewett, Hal Houle and the others that my aged mind can't recall now who write in different things to try and those of you that furnish or bring to our attention the Internet videos that are so interesting and helpful should be thanked, not vilified (never used that word before).
All I know is that I would rather read something positive and helpful rather than someone sitting on the sidelines trying to pick errors out of the air and hide their own problems.
Thank you again and I hope the response was more positive than negative and that you will contine to post your ideas.
Jerry.
PastPrime said:
THANKS Jerry!!! But remember...the system doesn't actually work and you should apologize to all the players you beat...by accident!!
(-:
Edit...And just for the hell of it, I moved the OB TWO diamonds forward on the same line and drained it on my first try. MAGIC...VOODOO... (-:
Last edited:
Captain..." Using any of these tip, half ball or other approximate aiming systems you are only guessing. (edit, 'only guessing' sounds a little harsh. I'll say 'At best only an educated guess'.)"
You may be the only person on the planet who thinks that the "half ball" aiming system is "approximate" since, in fact it is both trivially easy to sight and produces an EXACT cut angle. You should review Mike Page's recent EXCELLENT video series on the half ball hit and also take note of his suggestion that using tip-to-OB aiming points is a useful approach.
And BTW, what in the WORLD is NOT "approximate" about ATTEMPTING to visualize and imaginary CP on the OB and then try to hit it with another imaginary CP on the cue ball?
Conversely, there is nothing imaginary about a cue tip nor is there anything imaginary about AT LEAST the center of to OB or either of its edges. So, there are AT LEAST the following highly recognizable tip-to-OB positions.
1. Center
2. outside edge of CB to outside edge of OB
3. Tip half on/half off
4. Inside edge of tip to outside edge of OB.
In addition, except for those who are terribly visually challenged, the additional TPs would include
5. 1/2 tip from center
6. 1 tip from center.
Across the "face" of the OB, there are therefore, ELEVEN highly recognizable TPs.
Finally, since you seem to have difficulting processing the concept let me REPEAT that the cut angles associated with each TP will vary based on cueing variables.
That FACT is true regardless of what aiming method is employed so that "experience" is the ONLY way to acquire the correct angle to the pocket. That reality is largely why some players can run 200 straight and others can't.
Regards,
Jim
You may be the only person on the planet who thinks that the "half ball" aiming system is "approximate" since, in fact it is both trivially easy to sight and produces an EXACT cut angle. You should review Mike Page's recent EXCELLENT video series on the half ball hit and also take note of his suggestion that using tip-to-OB aiming points is a useful approach.
And BTW, what in the WORLD is NOT "approximate" about ATTEMPTING to visualize and imaginary CP on the OB and then try to hit it with another imaginary CP on the cue ball?
Conversely, there is nothing imaginary about a cue tip nor is there anything imaginary about AT LEAST the center of to OB or either of its edges. So, there are AT LEAST the following highly recognizable tip-to-OB positions.
1. Center
2. outside edge of CB to outside edge of OB
3. Tip half on/half off
4. Inside edge of tip to outside edge of OB.
In addition, except for those who are terribly visually challenged, the additional TPs would include
5. 1/2 tip from center
6. 1 tip from center.
Across the "face" of the OB, there are therefore, ELEVEN highly recognizable TPs.
Finally, since you seem to have difficulting processing the concept let me REPEAT that the cut angles associated with each TP will vary based on cueing variables.
That FACT is true regardless of what aiming method is employed so that "experience" is the ONLY way to acquire the correct angle to the pocket. That reality is largely why some players can run 200 straight and others can't.
Regards,
Jim
av84fun said:
I'm a little bit sorry that it came out that way. Not very much though. It is just that every time I make an irrefutable point, you manage ignore it or change it into something else without ever giving any argument that proves other wise. Just like above where I show out of your own words that CP is much more accurate and you just say, no it isn't, without any backup.
I stopped participating in aiming threads a long time ago because of this exact tactic.
I'll end my participation again I guess with these thoughts. All of these type systems are short cut systems. By short cut systems I mean they are looking for a way to make it easy. I hate to disappoint you but there is no easy way out. A short cut system I guess is fine if you have no drive to become the best player you can be. I guess I make the mistake of thinking that everyone on here is trying to become the best player they can be. A short cut like this can make you a little better than you are, but it is not going to make you the best you can be. You are not going to become a better player by basing your play on a short cut. You need to use a non-short cut system on all your shots so that when you need it for tougher shots, it's there.
At this point I usually get into how you should be striving to play by feel and a short cut will not move you in that direction etc, etc. I think I'll skip that part cause your not ready for that yet. There are no skills that I know of, that using short cuts to try to make it easier, will help you become the best you can be at that skill.
Good luck,
JR
Captain..."At this point I usually get into how you should be striving to play by feel and a short cut will not move you in that direction etc, etc. I think I'll skip that part cause your not ready for that yet."
You say that you'll skip something that you just DIDN'T skip.
LOL
And since I'm SO "not ready" why don't you give me the 5-7 and we'll play some.
Chris's
9 ft.
3 Races to 9
Alternate Break
Texas Express
1 bag per set...2 loss tap out...POSTED
And I am SO, SO appreciative that you are "a little bit sorry...but not very much."
I FEEL ya man. I can't tell you how much that means to me.
(-:
EDIT: You have also insulted a number of other people who have benefitted...so, I guess we are all just NOT WORTHY.
ROFLMAO
You say that you'll skip something that you just DIDN'T skip.
LOL
And since I'm SO "not ready" why don't you give me the 5-7 and we'll play some.
Chris's
9 ft.
3 Races to 9
Alternate Break
Texas Express
1 bag per set...2 loss tap out...POSTED
And I am SO, SO appreciative that you are "a little bit sorry...but not very much."
I FEEL ya man. I can't tell you how much that means to me.
(-:
EDIT: You have also insulted a number of other people who have benefitted...so, I guess we are all just NOT WORTHY.
ROFLMAO
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Tin Man
I am sure a lot of players including champions use the ghost ball system so its "weaknesses" are literally in the eye of the beholder.
What I mean by that is that some people have vastly more ability than others to perceive imaginary objects like a ghost ball and to "freeze" them in a fixed position...such as when executing an eye pattern during the warm up strokes.
In addition, as you know, the ghost balls's position determined by the geometric line of centers to the pocket is not accurate on most cut shots without aim or english compensation.
But I intend NO disrespect for that system. It's just that, like all systems, it will work better for some people than others for various reasons.
Regards,
Jim
I am sure a lot of players including champions use the ghost ball system so its "weaknesses" are literally in the eye of the beholder.
What I mean by that is that some people have vastly more ability than others to perceive imaginary objects like a ghost ball and to "freeze" them in a fixed position...such as when executing an eye pattern during the warm up strokes.
In addition, as you know, the ghost balls's position determined by the geometric line of centers to the pocket is not accurate on most cut shots without aim or english compensation.
But I intend NO disrespect for that system. It's just that, like all systems, it will work better for some people than others for various reasons.
Regards,
Jim
av84fun said:
I can't seem to help myself from replying. I didn't insult anyone. I just showed some facts about this kind of thing.
Again you come back without hitting any of the issues. Why not come back with something about your little system not being just an attempt at finding a short cut to pocketing balls.
I skipped a paragraph or two about how this kind of system is a detriment to learning to play by feel.
Are you ready for it? I know one thing for sure. If shortly before this thread started you were searching for a system to help you make two diamond distance shots and were excited about this thing that you found, then your not ready for me. And I don't even play that much any more. A lot of people here know that I don't play for much money but if you live reasonably close to me and are interested in a match where the loser posts the results here. You know, a pride thing. Let's play a little. I'm in S. Central Pa.