Aiming With Squares

C

CueAndMe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's another way of aiming to add to your bag of tricks. It needs some refinement, but works fairly well as is. I made templates for left and right cuts for anyone interested in printing them out to practice the visualization.

Here's how it works:

Visualize the CB-to-rail line that is parallel to the OB-to-pocket line. Working off of that parallel line, visually draw a perfect square (lying flat on the table, or extending off of it) that contains both the CB and the OB. Using the templates below as visualization practice (move closer to your eye or farther away as necessary to make the square bigger or smaller), locate where on the square the OB lies. That position determines the shot angle. Find the corresponding aim point on the OB in the template, adjust as needed, and shoot. The aiming points in parentheses are for where the appropriate edge of the CB must be aimed on the OB. All other aims are for center ball.

The angle numbers are as close as I could get them measuring off of the Aiming Table, so they could be off by a degree or 2 in areas.

For shots where the CB is very near the OB, such as within a foot or so, jump up to the next thinner cut angle. This is an area that needs refinement. Suggestions are welcome.


CueTable Help



Template for cuts to the right:
RightCutTemplate.JPG

Template for cuts to the left:
LeftCutTemplate.JPG

Edit: Adding Simpler Templates:

RightCutTemplate2.JPG

LeftCutTemplate2.JPG
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know. What can I say. It is what it is.
The reason I used a square is the ease of visualization of 4 equal sides.
The midway point(28 degrees) is easy to locate as well as the 47 degree corner. Divisions using those points as well as the 0 and 90 degree corner are not all that difficult. And if you can memorize the shots that correspond, it's just another tool. It's obviously not the holy grail. Even without much practice though, it gets you in the ball park. Maybe good for beginners to visualize 1/4 ball reference shots and aims.
 
So this is another way to figure out which fractional CB/OB alignment is closest to your shot (the usual way is to learn to recognize the fractional reference angles by sight, which has the advantage of being simpler and more portable). I think the more steps needed to figure out the reference CB/OB alignment (and the more "artificial" the steps are) the less accurate and useful the system is.

It's a clever idea as a way to find cut angles, but I doubt its utility on the table. Also, visualizing the square adds another source for error.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hal
Another Way of Using Squares

I understand the objections, but if you try it you'll see that it is pretty quick to visualize. Object balls close to a rail are one potentially valuable use of it.

Here's another way of using squares:
Create a square by beginning with the CB-OB line. Then draw a line from the pocket through the OB to a point on the square. These angles are compressed because they are determined by using the stationary OB center rather than the ever-moving ghost ball. For more on this check out the original post in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=109298&page=3

With this method, the angles need to be decompressed, but are still determined by where on the square the line hits.

I've had problems with visualizing and recognizing angles without a reference visual, like a square, which is why I came up with these methods.

See page two for another square:

CueTable Help

 
I have noticed that all the aiming system seem to have one phrase in common: "adjust as needed".
 
I appreciate the enthusiasm really I do , but IMO . . . your insane. :)

I'm just so lost on people that can't 'visialize' the simplest and most basic concept of a ghost ball but can visualize , or think they can visualize , like half a dozen unintuitive geometric configurations , apply some complex formula from memory , apply all the varibles that exist in all shots and somehow improve on consistancy. It's madness to me.

Spend this much time making balls , be conscience of your misses and why , and you'll get better faster I promise.
 
Funny story.

Hal always tells me about the 3 NASA engineers that would visit him. He said they were probably the most intelligent people he has ever met in his life, true rocket scientist's as Hal would say, although they could not comprehend how to put an object ball in the hole. As many times as he would show them, they would always refute it saying that there are a million angles in pool and there is no way he could possibly make any ball on the table using only 2 aims. He did it again and again but their big brains just would not allow them to see it for what it was. Hal still laughs hysterically thinking those 3 geniuses are still out there with a high run of 3 a piece.

End funny story.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Try this, imagine the balls as 1 1/8 round and high DISCS.
Click to expand...

I have tried this actually. I've also made these discs out of paper to see if it would help. I haven't had success with it though. I guess it all depends upon what a particular individual is capable of visualizing. For me, squares are easy, angles less, and ghost balls even less.
Thanks for the suggestion.
 
RRfireblade said:
I appreciate the enthusiasm really I do , but IMO . . . your insane. :)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue with that.

I'm just so lost on people that can't 'visialize' the simplest and most basic concept of a ghost ball but can visualize , or think they can visualize , like half a dozen unintuitive geometric configurations , apply some complex formula from memory , apply all the varibles that exist in all shots and somehow improve on consistancy. It's madness to me.

Spend this much time making balls , be conscience of your misses and why , and you'll get better faster I promise.
Click to expand...

I can see how it would be frustrating for you to see all the contortions some of us go through. I like it because it's kind of fun to look at the same shot from different perspectives.
I think the ghost ball method is ideal if I could just figure out how to visualize it properly. I have a tough time with it. Maybe there's a way to practice this visualization. Any tips would be appreciated.
One great thing about the ghost ball technique is that you are actually aiming and aligning the cue directly to the point where you are looking. It's an attribute that no other method has.
Believe me, if I could just visualize that darn thing I'd be using it exclusively.
 
I gotcha , I'm not even saying the ghost ball 'technique' is the way to go , I'm mostly ssaying that pocketing a ball really isn't that complicated.

However tho , there are no shortcuts either.

No matter how you end up figuring it out , you have to teach your mind what the angle is on any given shot to make a ball. The fractional guys at least have the edge in that for begining players , you just take a guess at the closest angle to one of the given 'cuts' and take the shot. At least that is a simple way to start but you still have to develop the tuning required to cover the many variances from the book shots.

IMO , the reason why many people struggle is they don't pay close enough attention to what happend when they miss. When I warm up I always keep track of my misses. Tonight for instance , the house I play at has very sticky balls . . . tons 'o throw on every shot. I always pay close attention to any misses right from the get go so I know how much adjustment to make and in what method of adjustment. Once I'm dialed in I'm usually good there for the night and focus mostly on speed control after that.

All I can suggest is if it's that much of a struggle , take a lesson and get some new prospective. You'd be suprised how many people I've helped with the simplest suggestions like where they 'should' be aiming at the pocket to increase thier chance of making a ball. That came up the other night with someone who never realized that the center of the pocket is not always the center of the pocket. :)
 
Koop said:
Funny story.

Hal always tells me about the 3 NASA engineers that would visit him. He said they were probably the most intelligent people he has ever met in his life, true rocket scientist's as Hal would say, although they could not comprehend how to put an object ball in the hole. As many times as he would show them, they would always refute it saying that there are a million angles in pool and there is no way he could possibly make any ball on the table using only 2 aims. He did it again and again but their big brains just would not allow them to see it for what it was. Hal still laughs hysterically thinking those 3 geniuses are still out there with a high run of 3 a piece.

End funny story.
Click to expand...

Hal probably knew less than the engineers about how he made shots. Being able to make shots with Hal's systems (or any system) doesn't mean you know how you're doing it, as system users demonstrate repeatedly here.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Hal probably knew less than the engineers about how he made shots. Being able to make shots with Hal's systems (or any system) doesn't mean you know how you're doing it, as system users demonstrate repeatedly here.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Still a funny story.

BTW, have you called him? I think you would enjoy the conversation and possibly learn something as well.

Regards,
Koop - high run of 4 balls
 
Koop said:
Still a funny story.

BTW, have you called him? I think you would enjoy the conversation and possibly learn something as well.

Regards,
Koop - high run of 4 balls
Click to expand...

he won't call. if he did hal already said he won't tell him anything. it's funny pj post pictures to show that he doesn't understand the system and the answers are right there on his own diagrams and he still can't figure it out but yet he continues to take jabs at both hal and his system. the way i see it you can't show someone who "thinks" they know everything anything. he could pay stan shuffet to teach him for a small fee. i wouldn't show him for any amount. :wink:
 
Koop said:
Still a funny story.
Click to expand...

Instead of wondering what it means that he can't communicate his system to even one of these guys, he assumes it's their failure and ridicules them. Pretty smug for a guy who apparently can't imagine playing well without aiming systems.

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top