Johnny V aiming system... The Clock

Billiard Architect

Billiard Architect

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ok here is one that I have been working on...

Look down on the object ball and picture a clock face on the ball. On the very bottom (contact point for a straight in shot) is 6 o'clock. Determine which path you want the object ball to go. Then figure the opposite time.. example... if you want the ball to go in a 1 o'clock path then the opposite time would be eleven. Now get behind the cueball and line it up so that where the arcs of the cueball and object ball intersect is equal to the opposite time you determined before... the picture explains what i mean...
 

Attachments

  • clock.jpg
    clock.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 3,657
cookie man said:
CTE is still the only way!!!
Click to expand...

This looks like a Center-To-Edge method to me...only simpler. The way CTE is generally explained, really sucks. Keep working on it Johnny, it looks pretty good.

Roger
 
No this is not CTE (just happens to be that way in the pic for no reason). This is a physical aiming system.

I think the reason center to edge works is because you are not really looking at the shot. Along with all of the other stick and edge aiming systems.

This is what I mean... Line up 2 balls with a 30 degree cut along the #1 diamond at one end of the table shooting into the corner pocket on the other end of the table (8 feet away). Use the center to edge system to pocket the ball. Now move the balls 6 inches while maintaining the distance and position, basically roll each ball 6 inches parallel to the end rail towards the pocket you are pocketing in. What you have done is added aprox 7 degrees to the cut angle. Now this is still the same CTE shot and shoot it. If everything was the same the ball should hit the side rail 2 diamonds up the rail and miss the shot completely. The reason it goes in is because you are not aiming when you aim this way. 9/16, 1 1/8, CTE, stick center to center, 1/3rds, 1/2's, Ball to table contacts. All of them work on the same principle. You are taking the physical mind out of aiming because you are not lining the shot up. It is forcing you to aim by feel alone.

If anyone has read Tim Galloway's book on the inner game of tennis you will understand what I mean. Hitting a ball without thinking about it. You are aiming with your minds eye. If any of you that play with glasses want to try something. Take them off and start banging balls. You will be surprised how many you make with just lining up the fuzzy spheres.

I have talked with Hal more than a thousand times literally. Spent almost every weekend with the man for over a year and a half. I brought up Tim and the minds eye concept and he just laughs. It really is the only way that I can explain the unexplainable. Do you think it is coincidence that Hal taught tennis years ago? If you ask him if he has heard of Tim Galloway he denies it but I think otherwise. I think Hal is a wonderful man and I think what he teaches works. But not on the basis of what people want to accept as reality.
 
Johnny "V" said:
Ok here is one that I have been working on...

Look down on the object ball and picture a clock face on the ball. On the very bottom (contact point for a straight in shot) is 6 o'clock. Determine which path you want the object ball to go. Then figure the opposite time.. example... if you want the ball to go in a 1 o'clock path then the opposite time would be eleven. Now get behind the cueball and line it up so that where the arcs of the cueball and object ball intersect is equal to the opposite time you determined before... the picture explains what i mean...
Click to expand...

This is very interesting and original, Johnny. It's a way to measure the amount of CB/OB overlap (like a "fractional overlap" system) with a visual aid (the clock face) that's very familiar to all of us and that also has other benefits.

The familiarity of the clock face is a major benefit because it probably makes visualizing the CB/OB overlaps easier than fractional systems (which divide the balls into fractions that aren't as easy to visualize and align).

It also divides into more easily-visualized divisions than fractional systems. If you count half hour divisions (12:30, 1:00, 1:30, 2:00, 2:30 on the right - 11:30, 11:00, 10:30, 10:00, 9:30 on the left), you have 5 cut angles per side (plus full and thin), which is a generous number for an "approximation" system.

Another plus is that the divisions give OB contact points that are spaced evenly around the equator (something that fractional systems can't do), meaning there are as many thin cuts as full cuts, and I believe the clockface divisions make them pretty easy to visualize too.

Yet another plus (maybe the biggest one) is that the clockface gives a visual representation of the cut angle that is created by the alignment (1 o'clock is 30 degrees from 12 o'clock and also creates a 30-degree cut, 2 o'clock is 60 degrees from 12 o'clock and also creates a 60-degree cut, etc.).

This is the first "reference angle" system that I want to give a try. I'm only sorry I didn't think of it first.

Very cool.

pj
chgo

P.S. And it's nothing like CTE.
 
Last edited:
Johnny "V" said:
Ok here is one that I have been working on...

Look down on the object ball and picture a clock face on the ball. On the very bottom (contact point for a straight in shot) is 6 o'clock. Determine which path you want the object ball to go. Then figure the opposite time...
Click to expand...

Actually, the clock reference for the intersection is exactly the same if you overlay it onto the cue ball and not the object ball.
 
ronhudson said:
Actually, the clock reference for the intersection is exactly the same if you overlay it onto the cue ball and not the object ball.
Click to expand...

I read it too quickly and thought this is what he meant. Yes, if you visualize the clockface on the CB rather than the OB you don't have to reverse anything to see the cut angle going to the correct side (but on the CB rather than the OB).

pj
chgo
 
This is pretty neat. I feel like I understand what you're saying, and also see how it could be accurate and useful - and that's the first time I think I can say that about ANY of the aiming systems I've read about on AZ :)
 
Patrick Johnson said:
This is very interesting and original, Johnny. It's a way to measure the amount of CB/OB overlap (like a "fractional overlap" system) with a visual aid (the clock face) that's very familiar to all of us and that also has other benefits.

The familiarity of the clock face is a major benefit because it probably makes visualizing the CB/OB overlaps easier than fractional systems (which divide the balls into fractions that aren't as easy to visualize and align).

It also divides into more easily-visualized divisions than fractional systems. If you count half hour divisions (12:30, 1:00, 1:30, 2:00, 2:30 on the right - 11:30, 11:00, 10:30, 10:00, 9:30 on the left), you have 5 cut angles per side (plus full and thin), which is a generous number for an "approximation" system.

Another plus is that the divisions give OB contact points that are spaced evenly around the equator (something that fractional systems can't do), meaning there are as many thin cuts as full cuts, and I believe the clockface divisions make them pretty easy to visualize too.

Yet another plus (maybe the biggest one) is that the clockface gives a visual representation of the cut angle that is created by the alignment (1 o'clock is 30 degrees from 12 o'clock and also creates a 30-degree cut, 2 o'clock is 60 degrees from 12 o'clock and also creates a 60-degree cut, etc.).

This is the first "reference angle" system that I want to give a try. I'm only sorry I didn't think of it first.

Very cool.

pj
chgo

P.S. And it's nothing like CTE.
Click to expand...
Thanks PJ...

BTW (Bob Jewett is going to love this one) the other thing I did not mention is that the arc intesection also lines up with the contact point on the object ball for those of you that like using contact points.

(Please send royalty fees for any tournaments or action games won using this system via pay pal). :)
 
md5key said:
This is pretty neat. I feel like I understand what you're saying, and also see how it could be accurate and useful - and that's the first time I think I can say that about ANY of the aiming systems I've read about on AZ :)
Click to expand...
looks like my rep points are going to go thru the roof for the week!!!

"THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE!!! THE NEW PHONE BOOKS ARE HERE!!!"
 
Johnny "V" said:
...the arc intesection also lines up with the contact point on the object ball
Click to expand...

It's a natural. I wonder why we haven't heard of something like this before...? Could you really be the first?

(Never occurred to me, dammit.)

pj
chgo
 
Pretty cool concept. U must spend alot of time thinkin about this stuff. I'm surprized "Watchez" didn't come up with this. (that was my attempt at humor :) )
 
Oh wait i can call it the V system... Cuz it uses the V where the two balls meet... Looks like I found a new meaning for Johnny "V"... LOL

Ok I'm wierd...
 
Johnny "V" said:
... Ok I'm weird...
Click to expand...
You're not that weird. Many would mistake you for normal on the street, but that's in California.

This is a very interesting result. I have never seen this method before. The closest I recall is a "shadow under the ball" system (which is imprecise) and bluepepper's aims around the circumference, which was recently described in another thread.

A little geometry and head scratching shows that the "V system" (or you might call it "intersection of circumferences") does in fact give the geometrically correct aim.

I think the system is hard to apply for nearly full shots because the V is very shallow then, but others may find this easy to visualize. If you get both points on the circumferences by coming around the circumferences by the cut angle, the sharpness of the V is not so important. I haven't yet had a chance to try this on a table.
 
I just came across this looking for GC III replacement parts:

aimbynumbers.jpg


Looks to be similar but doesn't use the clockface and seems like it may require those special balls.. Anyone used this? Is it similar to the method presented in this thread?
 
md5key said:
I just came across this looking for GC III replacement parts:

aimbynumbers.jpg


Looks to be similar but doesn't use the clockface and seems like it may require those special balls.. Anyone used this? Is it similar to the method presented in this thread?
Click to expand...

This is Joe Tucker's system. We've talked about it a number of times here (Joe posts here).

It's not really that similar to the "V" system - has more in common with Fractional Aiming.

pj
chgo
 
Not quite the same. It uses strictly contact points. You line up the disk on the object ball and that tells you which number should contact the object ball. Then you line up the cueball number to the object ball number to make the shot.
 
md5key said:
I just came across this looking for GC III replacement parts: .... Looks to be similar but doesn't use the clockface and seems like it may require those special balls.. Anyone used this? Is it similar to the method presented in this thread?
Click to expand...
No, I think Joe Tucker's system is entirely a "plan view" system in that all the angles are done from above. The resulting spots on the equator don't exactly involve an "elevation view" of the ball. Johnny V's system differs in that you take an angle around the circumference of the ball as seen from the tip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top