Aiming systems

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

juanbond said:
I think maybe you're not following the correct colored line on Patrick's diagram... #4 goes in the pocket (purple line), but it's #1 and #2 that miss the pocket by quite a bit.

I just set up the #1 shot on my table and missed it to almost the exact same point. Like this:

CueTable Help

You are correct again sir! That shot is the first to the left of center in the 4 ball series. As you will note, the LOC lies just 1 ball width with in parameters of the LOC area for TP3 and actually requires TP4.

However, I missed considerably closer to the pocket than your diagram shows. And just as a point of discussion 4" pockets may be great to practice on but will rarely be found. Certainly corner pocket widths can be anything a given promotor says they should be but the current WPA rules provide...

"Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]"

FTR, mine are 4.625

I am going to do some further testing to see whether an exception for such "borderline" shots i.e. those where the LOC points to a ball width or less from the boder of the TP area should be adjusted to the next thiner TP.

REP to you for pointing that out.

Finally, Patrick WOULD have been delighted to know that I would have conceded the first of the 4 shots in the example and would not owe him $1000 if he had taken the bet but he did not (unless he did so further down in the thread...in which case my concession will stand and he will be up a grand. However, the remaining 3 shots DO go and the bet proposal stands as described with the exception of the elimination of the first shot.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

Jal said:
Let me ask you this. Do you agree that if you aim AND SHOOT through the center of the cueball at the edge of the object ball, that the cueball will thusly travel along the line from the center of the cueball to the edge of the object ball? If so, do you further agree that this will always result in a half-ball hit or 30 degree cut (ignoring throw and a very slight compression effect)

Jim, I can't answer your questions as posed because you say to shoot through the center of the cue ball "at the edge of the object ball".

Shoot WHAT at the edge of the object ball??? The tip?? What PART of the tip?

But in any event, I see no point in discussing that subject because I don't see how it applies to the system.

Sorry, I haven't. It wouldn't tell me much because if all the balls went in, I would surmise that I made unconscious adjustments. If they didn't, then you might suspect that I sabotaged the experiment, knowingly or unknowingly, to avoid dissonance with my pre-conceived views.

Then with great and genuine respect, there seems no point in your study of this or ANY system. I mean that in the most friendly way as I hope you will accept. But your comment, as presented, means that you would reject ALL systems because you couldn't tell whether you were executing it as instructed.

Fair enough...if you think you can't tell if you are or are not, then I agree with you that spending time on any system would not be productive for you.

I can't afford the dollars you guys are talking about, but I would think you could afford to make a video of your example. If you could demonstrate that all four balls can be pocketed using your described method (center of tip pointing to edge of OB) - and the OB doesn't have to be center-pocketed - I'll contribute $50 for your trouble. (Believe it or not, $50 would hurt.)

But I'd have to see something like two gate balls in front of the object ball to insure that the cueball is traveling in the prescribed direction. I haven't figured out what a reasonable gate size would be, but roughly one ball diameter plus 1/16", say. Only shots where the guide balls weren't contacted would count, of course. It would be best if there were no sidespin on the cueball, but that won't change things much so a touch of it would be okay.

Thanks for your willingness to put up ANY money but no, I don't think that a video could capture the required sight pictures.

The gate balls is an interesting control feature but I agree that it would be difficult to set up correctly. At the moment, I have the following ideas about pulling off a public "challenge" of the now THREE shot example discussed for the challenge.

Possibly, we could get 3 TOP players to simply aim the shots as they normally would and then TELL us where their cue tips are pointing with a "majority rules" rule...i.e. if 2 of the 3 say they see a differnent sight picture than called for in my system, I lose...and vice versa.

Another approach would be for me to bring a LaserCue to the DCC and sight the shot they way my system requires and then just "push through" the shot with no back stroke so that the CB would be virtually certain to travel along the intended line of aim.

But, I think that if top pros just sight the 3 shots and report that they SEE the cue tip half on and half off the edge of the CB (or not) then the bet would be won or lost because we would all accept that they would make the balls if they shot them.

I suppose the BEST way would be to have a device built like some that Jack Koehler built or had built for his experiments referred to in his CLASSIC books that would not allow the cue stick to travel forward on any path other than the intended one.

I'll give it some more thought and again, want to THANK you for your interest and time devoted to the study of this system.

Let me just close this response by saying to you and others that I never suggested the system was perfect in every respect and included an "Exceptions" section in my original post...which now must be added to based on flaws pointed out by Juanbond.

HOWEVER, without question, the system FOR ME, has resulted in AT LEAST a 25% improvement in my pocketing percentage of shots of a sufficient degree of difficulty wherein a system might be helpful (why have a system for hangers when all you need to do is not have a heart attack during the shot!!) (-:\\
And I suggest that any system that would have HALF that benefit would be WELL worth the study...flaws and all.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

Patrick...just to make it official...you didn't accept the original proposition involving 4 shots...the first of which (1 ball width from the ball at the center of the table) has been pointed out to my satisfaction as a flawed shot, so I hereby withdraw it.

However, the proposition stands as earlier posted with the exception that it is now a 3 ball series...the first of which would be positioned 2 ball widths from the edge of a ball placed in the exact center of the table.

I confirm that all 3 remaining shots go with the same "sight picture" provided for in my system and will wager anything from bragging rights to $1,000 per shot series.

And for everyone, let me say that I now have a pm dialog going with SEVEN fourm members who don't choose to post in this thread and who confirm that the system...as modified...is working WELL for them...so far.

It is interesting that numerous people are able to make shots according to the system and numerous others cannot.

The ONLY explanations I can think of are fundamental differences in visual perception...possibly caused by dominant eye issues which is so common in skeet and trap shooting and/or a failure on my part to explain the system in a way that all can understand it.

I can do nothing about the former issue and have done the best I can do on the latter.

However, in just a few weeks, I will be at DCC with a LOT of Azers and can work out any explanation issues in person...after which time I am sure there will be NUMEROUS posts here that should bring the investigation into this system to a close...one way or the other.

yeah, yeah...I know...Thank God....(so don't bother) (-:

Regards,
Jim

Patrick Johnson · Dec 1, 2007

Patrick...just to make it official...

I've never taken your "bet" seriously, but if we're ever in the same room I'll be glad to show you how much money you would have lost. Good luck with your system, but here's a warning: the more you know, the less it may work.

pj
chgo

pdcue · Dec 1, 2007

av84fun said:
First, your intimation that anything in my post remotely suggests that you are a moron is obviously incorrect by virtue of the words I wrote...unless you just conclude that anyone who does not agree with you is suggesting you are a moron.

That comment was quite unfortunate IMHO.

You have stated that my system is geometrically impossible. Such a statement requires the conclusion that you have done the math. So you show ME the math and then we'll talk.

Regards,
Jim

Yeah,

As my new best friend, Patrick J. of Chi-town has pointed out,
several of us have done the math before. If part of your research
into aimming sytems had included using the search function
on this forum, you would have known that fact.

What you have is old wine in new bottles. If you don't understand that
by now, I am forced to conclude, that, like so many others, you just
can't let yourself ever understand.

Dale<what is that one about that river in Egypt?>

pdcue · Dec 1, 2007

Patrick Johnson said:
This doesn't make any sense to me. What does "reduce to the width of the surface contact of the balls" mean? I think you may have some incorrect notions about what's necessary to make shots.

pj
chgo

I think this must be his way of saying the margin
of error decreases on longer shots - and, kind of,
there is NO margin of error on some shots.

Ther is some truth, but it is not that simple.

Dale<interpreter of English between the lines>

pdcue · Dec 1, 2007

av84fun said:
Of course...you are totally correct. My bad entirely!!! Eating crow after so much turkey is especially bad!

What I MEANT to say was just the opposite of what I did say. What I meant is that the SAME "aiming method" WILL cause a hit on the exact same point of contact in spite of the fact that the CB has moved a significant distance.

The OVERRIDING point that I so badly buthered in my post to you was that my system has nothing to do with aiming at contact points and that, therefore, the number of aiming points that must be contacted to pocket all shots is irrelevant to my system.

Stated another way...by using one of the 6 AIMING METHODS, according to the diamond-related rules, will result in the OB striking the correct contact point on the OB.

Sorry for having opened mouth and inserted foot. I've been getting quite a few comments and clearly didn't give sufficient time to considering your last one.

Regards,
Jim

\

This might be a good point<no pun intended> to interject
some clairifcation.

I think you do not fully understand the diference between 'aiming'
and 'sighting'

Shooting a cue ball at an object ball is very different than
shooting a BB at a basketball.

By definition, anytime you succeede in poking an object ball
into a pocket, you have 'aimmed' the CB at the OB correctly.
Or, more specifically, the CP on the CB at the CP on the OB.

This aim is not defined by where the cue is pointing, nor by
where your eyes are looking.

FWIW - I visualize a point on the OB, and a point on the CB,
then hit the CB so the points collide. I never give any thought
at all to what the cue is pointed at.

Disclaimer. I haven't actually used the above method for decades.
What I really do is look at the OB and determine 'you hit it here'
and they go in, but that is because the whole aimming process
has become internalized<the ultimat goal> for me.

That is why I never describe what I do as an aimming system,
rather as an aimming method, or technique.

Dale

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

Patrick Johnson said:
I've never taken your "bet" seriously, but if we're ever in the same room I'll be glad to show you how much money you would have lost. Good luck with your system, but here's a warning: the more you know, the less it may work.

pj
chgo

And exactly the same back at ya. Come to DCC! I will be a blast! I would be genuinely pleased to meet you and to see how red your face would become when the shots are DEMONSTRATED to go! (-:

Seriously though, there now seem to be 3 camps who have reported back to me.

One camp that agrees the shots go and that the system, in the words of one observer is "fascinating."

Another camp that reports some go and some don't but are close...but on a table with FOUR INCH pockets.

And your camp which suggests that the shots must miss by a mile.

As I noted in another post, since the system is based entirely on "sight pictures" the vagaries of human perception, eye dominance, and eye positioning in relation to the vertical axis over the cue stick can and almost certainly DO create different sight pictures.

A cross-eye-dominant skeet shooter will miss shots by TWO FEET if he/she shoots according to the sight pictures depicted in all the instruction books.

For example, Niels could never use such a system as mine for obvious reasons. Karen either.

That issue never occured to me when I developed the system because I was developling for me. I only posted it in an attempt to contribute to the community.

Regards,
Jim

pdcue · Dec 1, 2007

av84fun said:
Well, we can agree on something anyway...that I will NEVER "understand" that the method doesn't work...simply because it FLAT OUT...PLAIN AND SIMPLE...DYED IN THE WOOL...NO KIDDING...SLAM DUNK...TAKE IT TO THE BANK...BOOK IT...DOES WORK and your adamant and UNTESTED comments to the contrary will be quite a source of embarrassment to you...SOON.

BET ME!!!

(-:

Oh, so now it's thump your chest and yell 'bet me' huh?

Are you really so ???? that you don't understand many people
on here know how to pocket balls. Two of the players wasting
their time with you, are pretty sporty shooters. One of them
even fired in a few balls in what was de facto the National
Championship tournament, back in the day. Plus there is all that
understanding advanced Mathmatics stuff.

Hint - you mat very well make lots of shots.
You do NOT do what you think you are doing.

Dale

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

pdcue said:
Yeah,

As my new best friend, Patrick J. of Chi-town has pointed out,
several of us have done the math before. If part of your research
into aimming sytems had included using the search function
on this forum, you would have known that fact.

What in the world would a search regarding your, Patrick's or anyone else's posting history regarding other aiming systems have to do anything? And with genuine respect for Patrick, MUCH of what he has posted in this thread demonstrated his utter misunderstanding about the dynamics of the system and resulted in comments that only added confusion.

For example he wrote ..."In fact, the majority of shots cannot be made with 6 contact points beyond about 2 feet. At 3 feet only 1/3 of all shots can be made and at 5 feet only 1/5 of all shots can be made..."

The problem being that the system has NOTHING TO DO with aiming at CONTACT POINTS!!

Wouldn't you agree that it is problematic for someone to attempt authoritative commentary on a system that he CLEARLY misunderstood...at least at the time of that post??

What you have is old wine in new bottles.

Ah but sir, it is the wine that matters...not the age of the bottle wouldn't you agree?

If you don't understand that by now, I am forced to conclude, that, like so many others, you just can't let yourself ever understand.

If I understood your inept analogy then we would both be wrong... so no, I don't understand it...in the sense that I don't understand that it is germane to this thread...because it isn't.

But of course, you are free to conclude whatever you wish.

Regards,
Jim

pdcue · Dec 1, 2007

SpiderWebComm said:
pj
chgo:

Av8 can't win based on what I've read. If you're at DCC, I'll let you setup random balls around the table and I'll pop them in aiming center-to-edge all day long. I'll use one aim for every shot at the table without kicks/banks. I'll even aim at the edge of the OB for straight in shots. I'll keep it friendly, just so you can see it - for $100.

ds
york

note: i'm not giving lessons or saying what i'm doing - i'm just doing it.

Gentlemen, please define your terms.

Spidey - When you say you will
"aim at the edge of the OB for straight-in shots",
what exactly do you mean? Cause I'm pretty sure you don't mean
the same thing I do with that phrase.

The answer to this question might go a long way toward clearing
away the mystery - is it all semantics?

Dale<captain of the language police>

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

I think this must be his way of saying the margin
of error decreases on longer shots - and, kind of,
there is NO margin of error on some shots.

Ther is some truth, but it is not that simple.

Regarding the fact that the margin of error decreases with distance, all I can say is "Duh!"

Regarding that much of what Patrick posts..."is not that simple" is another matter about which you and I can agree. PROGRESS!

Patrick opines, whether he realizes it or not...that NO aiming method can be proven to work because the shooter may or may not be executing the system (due to the operation of the subconscious mind).

Carrying that sophistry to its conclusion, he suggtests that all study of aiming methods should be abandoned and therefore, we should just hit shots as hard as we can in the hope that they will eventually fall in a pocket.

The rejoinder that the only way to pocket balls is by FEEL or INSTINCT is also simplistic to the point of being nonsensical since the acquisition of FEEL results from the application of SOME system i.e. "I see an angle created by the positions of the CB, OB and pocket and given that angle, if I direct the CB to a certain place on the table, the OB will fall."

But that process is a SYSTEM...albeit one arrived at by random selection...but a system nevertheless.

Finally, all but the most dim-witted among us kinow that;

A) Learning may be accomplished by both positive and negative example such that the proposition of wrong theories serve to reinforce correct ones and
B) The SEARCH for knowledge and means of improvement is noble in and of itself and should therefore be encouraged and not trashed with arrogance and condescension.

Would you agree with that?

Regards,
Jim

pdcue · Dec 1, 2007

av84fun said:
Regarding the fact that the margin of error decreases with distance, all I can say is "Duh!"

Regarding that much of what Patrick posts..."is not that simple" is another matter about which you and I can agree. PROGRESS!

Patrick opines, whether he realizes it or not...that NO aiming method can be proven to work because the shooter may or may not be executing the system (due to the operation of the subconscious mind).

Carrying that sophistry to its conclusion, he suggtests that all study of aiming methods should be abandoned and therefore, we should just hit shots as hard as we can in the hope that they will eventually fall in a pocket.

The rejoinder that the only way to pocket balls is by FEEL or INSTINCT is also simplistic to the point of being nonsensical since the acquisition of FEEL results from the application of SOME system i.e. "I see an angle created by the positions of the CB, OB and pocket and given that angle, if I direct the CB to a certain place on the table, the OB will fall."

But that process is a SYSTEM...albeit one arrived at by random selection...but a system nevertheless.

Finally, all but the most dim-witted among us kinow that;

A) Learning may be accomplished by both positive and negative example such that the proposition of wrong theories serve to reinforce correct ones and
B) The SEARCH for knowledge and means of improvement is noble in and of itself and should therefore be encouraged and not trashed with arrogance and condescension.

Would you agree with that?

Regards,
Jim

Would I agree? - No.

The problem with all these systems is they actually inhibit your
progress toward becomming an accomplished shotmaker.

If you only learn one thing from this thread, make sure you learn this:
Good players don't think about aimming - they just focus on the ball.

Please don't pretend like you already knew that.

Dale

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

pdcue said:
\

This might be a good point<no pun intended> to interject
some clairifcation.

I think you do not fully understand the diference between 'aiming'
and 'sighting'[QUOTE/]

Now it is YOUR turn to munch on some crow. In fact, the verb forms of "aim" and "sight" are synonymous to wit:

v. sight?ed, sight?ing, sights
v.tr.
1. To perceive with the eyes; get sight of: sighted land after 40 days at sea.
2. To observe through a sight or an optical instrument: sight a target.
3. To adjust the sights of (a rifle, for example).
4. To take aim with (a firearm).

Shooting a cue ball at an object ball is very different than
shooting a BB at a basketball.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing!!!

By definition, anytime you succeede in poking an object ball
into a pocket, you have 'aimmed' the CB at the OB correctly.

Click to expand...

No, by definition, you are wrong again. If you poke a ball placed onto a table after your are blindfolded you have not "aimed" sir.

aim (m)
v. aimed, aim?ing, aims
v.tr.
1. To direct (a weapon) toward an intended target.

You cannot direct a weapon toward an INTENDED target if you have no idea where the target is!

FWIW - I visualize a point on the OB, and a point on the CB,
then hit the CB so the points collide. I never give any thought
at all to what the cue is pointed at.

Click to expand...

Cool. Whatever works.

Disclaimer. I haven't actually used the above method for decades.
What I really do is look at the OB and determine 'you hit it here'
and they go in, but that is because the whole aimming process
has become internalized<the ultimat goal> for me.

Click to expand...

Fine...and that only reinforces my earlier comment that ball pocketing methods that TODAY can be described as being based on feel or instinct are actually not. They are based on SOME SYSTEM that, over time, has been reduced to the subconscious mind BUT IT IS STILL THERE...IT HAS NOT VANISHED LEAVING YOU TO ONLY GUESS!

That is why I never describe what I do as an aimming system,
rather as an aimming method, or technique.

Dale

Click to expand...

Whatever, but those phrases are all synonymous!!

system

Synonyms: scheme, arrangement, classification, structure, organism, organization, coordination
Synonyms: method, technique, procedure, routine, approach, practice

You're gettin in over your head Dale. (-:

Regards,
Jim

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

Quoting me A) Learning may be accomplished by both positive and negative example such that the proposition of wrong theories serve to reinforce correct ones and
B) The SEARCH for knowledge and means of improvement is noble in and of itself and should therefore be encouraged and not trashed with arrogance and condescension.

Would you agree with that?

Regards,
Jim

Quoting you...Would I agree? - No.

Well, that's sort of sad...no it is actually sad... because it demonstrates that your study of history is virtually non-existant since any such study would reveal that most of the great innovations of all time were contributed by people who were nearly universally criticized...IF NOT JAILD OR EXECUTED...by the vast majority of their contemporaries.

Do you know nothing about Bell, Beethoven, Einstein, Billy Mitchell, Galileo...pick a religious profet??? Too bad.

If you only learn one thing from this thread, make sure you learn this:
Good players don't think about aimming - they just focus on the ball.

EXACTLY how many "good players" have you interviewed on that subject?

And how about GREAT players? How do THEY approach this subject and how many of THEM have you interviewed.

And if what you say is correct, why is it that practically every author of LEGENDARY instructional manual (and I own most of them) TEACH AIMING SYSTEMS/METHODS/TECHNIQUES?? Some devote WHOLE CHAPTERS to the subject.

Have you ever heard of Robert Byrne? Do yourself a favor and invest in his Standard Book of Pool and Billiards and note that on page 23 (in my edition) he discusses aiming systems!!! I have already discussed that such systems MAY IN SOME CASES BUT NOT NEARLY ALL be reduced to the subconscious but that the system is still their AND FUNCTIONING.

And with reference to you geometry devotees, let me quote directly from Byrne who wrote:

"While the geometric aiming method described in the first four diagrams is useful at first, you will soon discover that you must hit the object ball slightly thinner than indicated."

He goes on to discuss friction induced throw. So when you and/or Patrick pontificdate that certain shots CAN'T go due to the geometric PROOFS, we are left to agree with you, or Robert Byrne.

I choose Byrne.

So if YOUR learn nothing else from this thread...learn this...that you should refrain from making broad generalizations, citing them as fact, when it is OBVIOUS that you ar not in possession of anywhere near sufficient data to support your statements and are therefore, just expressing opinions based upon not based upon or supported by any set of data which you could produce.

Hey, opinions are fine. I have no problem with opinions. Have a lot of them myself. But I DO have a problem with the age-old tactic of less skilled debaters of attempting to pass opinion off as FACT which is demonstrably what you have done here.

Regards,
Jim

Patrick Johnson · Dec 1, 2007

Patrick opines, whether he realizes it or not...

Don't presume to know what I opine "whether I realize it or not". You don't have a clue what I say, much less what I mean. Leave me out of your hairbrained pronouncements.

pj
chgo

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

Patrick Johnson said:
Don't presume to know what I opine "whether I realize it or not". You don't have a clue what I say, much less what I mean. Leave me out of your hairbrained pronouncements.

pj
chgo

Well, I can read so I do know "what you say." And you haven't seemed to be reluctant to include me in your "hairbrained pronouncements" which defines some but admittedly not all of them...ones such as certain shots CAN'T go due to the operation of raw geometry which exposed your lack of understanding of collision induced throw which is a Pool 101 topic...or that no system can be tested in actual practice because you can't know whether you are executing the system...but OK, you stay out of my face and I'll stay out of yours.

Deal?

(-:

CaptainJR · Dec 1, 2007

av84fun said:
CaptainJR..."If you want to convince me all you have to do is tell me how your system changes on each of those shots to pocket the ball. For every shot you show that it does work on there are a thousand other shots that is doesn't work on."

Please don't misunderstand or feel that the following is intended to be even slightly impudent....honest...but I am really not concerned with trying to convince you of anything.

I have posted the system. It works. If you are interested in it then you will investigate it yourself and if you're not, you're not. TOTALLY fine with me either way.

Regards,
jim

As usual with these types of threads and systems, as soon as someone proves it doesn't work they say 'they don't care what you think'. Then they go on trying to prove it works to everyone else except the person that proved them wrong.

If it is working for you, you are using other compensations that you don't know you are doing. That is fine. Good for you.

The reason that I come into this type of thing and show it doesn't work is to save some beginner the frustration of trying to make it work when it doesn't.

I don't mean anything personally against you. I'm sorry it sort of comes out that way.

av84fun · Dec 1, 2007

I don't mean anything personally against you. I'm sorry it sort of comes out that way.

No, not at all and in the same spirit let me respond that:

My system DOES work in the vast majority of cases and you cannot, in good faith, argue that it does not because you haven't tried it.

Having said that, as I have already posted, since the system is based on "rifle sight" aiming, it is unavoidably subject to the vagaries of human vision that are WELL known to science and obviously cause certain people to obtain radically different "sight pictures" even when viewing the exact same objects.

So, it would be wrong...and I never have suggested that such a system must work for everyone.

Your bottom line is that eventually, aim becomes a matter of feel by which I assume you mean "instinctive behavior not generated by a conscious plan."

If that is not what you mean, I am genuinely interested in what you do mean.

But if my definition is close, then I suggest that a system proceeds any ability to aim by feel.

[QUOTEThe reason that I come into this type of thing and show it doesn't work is to save some beginner the frustration of trying to make it work when it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

But with respect, you haven't done any such thing. Please point me to any of your posts that I may have overlooked that proves anything about the system one way or the other.

You certainly have expressed your opinion and totally fine with me. But tell me, if you would, how many shots at how many angles at what lengths and positions on the table have you shot in an effort to test the system?

But you join a certain other poster in perpetuating the notion that even if you did test it, it wouldn't prove anything since the tester would just subconsciously shoot by some other formula.

That thesis suggests that the new student whose interests you attempt to protect should just bang the balls around until they start going in and then try to imprint that feel into their inner depths.

But such a thesis flies in the face of the way in which the most noted teachers of all time approach the issue of pocketing balls. So, exhibiting the same concern as you do about newcomers being led astray, let me suggest to them that they ignore all "shoot 'em until you get the feel" and instead go buy AT LEAST Byrn'es Standard Book of Pool and Billiards and Koehler's The Science of Pocket Billiards...BOTH of which discuss the use of aiming SYSTEMS.

And again, for those posters who have so vociferously PROVEN (in their own minds) that any system not based on PURE geometry CANNOT WORK, let me refer them to Byrne's discussion of collision-induced throw.

Moreoever, Koehler deleved even deeper into that subject. On page 40 (of my addition of "Science if Pocket Billiards" Koehler has a chart demonstrating that collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES even on clean balls which, on longer shots will cause a significant miss.

So, for those...including several in this thread...who propose that if a shot is not geometrically correct, it cannot go and if it is, it must go, have never heard of collision-induced throw or deny both Byrne's and Koeller's findings on that subject.

As a matter of fact, the reason that my system DOES WORK for the vast majority of shots (as recently edited) MAY be due to the influence of collision-induced throw. I have no earthly idea whether that is correct but it would certainly be worth investigation by you number cruncher types...and would be far more respectful of scientific study than merely denying the viability of the system based on utterly dogmatic theories about geometry in the face of advice from Byrne, Koehler and many others to the contrary.

Finally, since Koehler's work has been referred to here, let me pass on his advice to people, including one rather self-confident poster here who recommends the ghost ball method. About that method, Koehler writes on page 28..." This aiming technique is accurate and simple enough for beginners but must be modified slightly to achieve absolute accuracy."

So for you ghost ball proponents, when you fail to finish as high in your local tournaments than you would prefer, you might want to take Koehler's advice to heart and more thoroughly study methods that DO NOT rely on raw geometry...for the reasons cited above.

Please know that these comments are presented to you in the same spirit yours were presented to me.

Regards,
Jim

Jal · Dec 1, 2007

av84fun said:
...And again, for those posters who have so vociferously PROVEN (in their own minds) that any system not based on PURE geometry CANNOT WORK, let me refer them to Byrne's discussion of collision-induced throw.

Moreoever, Koehler deleved even deeper into that subject. On page 40 (of my addition of "Science if Pocket Billiards" Koehler has a chart demonstrating that collision-induced throw can alter the GEOMETRICAL path of the OB by as much as FOUR DEGREES even on clean balls which, on longer shots will cause a significant miss.

So, for those...including several in this thread...who propose that if a shot is not geometrically correct, it cannot go and if it is, it must go, have never heard of collision-induced throw or deny both Byrne's and Koeller's findings on that subject.

As a matter of fact, the reason that my system DOES WORK for the vast majority of shots (as recently edited) MAY be due to the influence of collision-induced throw. I have no earthly idea whether that is correct but it would certainly be worth investigation by you number cruncher types...

Jim, here is a look at how throw would affect your example (four balls on the center string).

You've already eliminated ball #1, but I'll include it here. The cut angles that will put the OB in the dead center of the pocket, if no throw takes place, are:

#1: 43.39 degrees
#2: 37.92
#3: 32.57
#4: 27.44

With a 5" pocket, there is a tolerance of 2.23 degrees on either side (OB on the spot). You could make this a little larger to allow for the fact that a ball will still drop even if it overlaps a jaw a bit (about 1/8 ball diameter if hit slowly). On the other hand, typical pocket sizes will be smaller than 5". Let's go with 2.5 degrees.

Your system uses a 30 degree cut for all four shots. Whatever words you've chosen to specify the aim direction, it still amounts to a 30 degree cut, ignoring throw. With throw, the actual cut angle is reduced to something less than 30 degrees.

As you can see, neither pocket slop nor throw will be sufficient to make shots 1 and 2 (throw will in fact make things worse). Shot 3 is borderline and throw will also make things worse here. Shot 4 is the only one helped by throw, so only one of them is pretty much a sure thing using your system. Natural variation in aim/stroke should also result in shot 3 dropping a fair amount of the time, but there'll probably be more nays than yeas here.

av84fun said:
...and would be far more respectful of scientific study than merely denying the viability of the system based on utterly dogmatic theories about geometry in the face of advice from Byrne, Koehler and many others to the contrary.

Geometry and physics are the very antithesis of "dogmatic". But they've been around so long, and have proven themselves to be so utterly reliable, when someone says something that contradicts them you can safely assume that the fault lies not with them, but with the speaker.

Your system is not useless by any means. But it's more limited than you thought it was, and it's value is even more questionable if these limitations aren't recognized.

Jim

Aiming systems

Banned

Banned

Banned

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

Banned

Banned

Fish of the Day

Banned

Shiver me timbers.

Banned

AzB Silver Member