A simple aiming system

M

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
I just thought I'd throw this out there for good conversation. I did not make it up, it's been around since the beginning of time. Does anyone make practical use of this at the table?

The premise: find the contact point on OB through center of pocket on back of ball. Find contact point on CB through center of pocket on front of ball. Imagine a line through these two points. Aim CCB parallel to this line.

The interesting tidbit of information here is finding the contact point on the CB. Some of the similar parallel aim systems tell you to find this point by finding a line parallel to the OB shot line. This one appears to be easier, but which is correct?

mdxnKiT.png
 
Last edited:
I'd like to understand what is simple about that system? LOL You need a protractor, tape measure and possibly slide rule to get everything precise enough on many cuts for it to have a chance to be successful.

I have in fact played around with that system. It is easy to see it is geometrically correct. However, finding that exact point on THE FRONT OF THE CB while standing behind it then moving in parallel to the CCB is a bit of a challenge. Using that system would be as silly as someone trying to be good using Ghost Ball.
 
mohrt said:
I just thought I'd throw this out there for good conversation. I did not make it up, it's been around since the beginning of time. Does anyone make practical use of this at the table?

The premise: find the contact point on OB through center of pocket on back of ball. Find contact point on CB through center of pocket on front of ball. Imagine a line through these two points. Aim CCB parallel to this line.

The interesting tidbit of information here is finding the contact point on the CB. Some of the similar parallel aim systems tell you to find this point by finding a line parallel to the OB shot line. This one appears to be easier, but which is correct?

mdxnKiT.png
Click to expand...

If you drew another parallel line from the inside edge of the CB to the OB you would have a picture of equal & opposite fractional overlap.

That is basically what I have used rather successfully for many, many years but I NEVER used a line from the pocket through the CB.

Regards,
Rick
 
It's hard to play the game this way. Imagine straight - parallel lines and then moving on perfectly straight lines. Very tough. This "system" and ghost ball aiming is something you can find everywhere. You can even find these "systems" in Mika Immonen's instructional dvd series.

I think most of us know that Mika doesn't aim this way.........
 
nobcitypool said:
I'd like to understand what is simple about that system? LOL You need a protractor, tape measure and possibly slide rule to get everything precise enough on many cuts for it to have a chance to be successful.

I have in fact played around with that system. It is easy to see it is geometrically correct. However, finding that exact point on THE FRONT OF THE CB while standing behind it then moving in parallel to the CCB is a bit of a challenge. Using that system would be as silly as someone trying to be good using Ghost Ball.
Click to expand...

Simple to understand, maybe not so simple to put to practical use :)
 
. I don't see anything wrong with this if you prefer aiming at contact points,

mohrt said:
I just thought I'd throw this out there for good conversation. I did not make it up, it's been around since the beginning of time. Does anyone make practical use of this at the table?

The premise: find the contact point on OB through center of pocket on back of ball. Find contact point on CB through center of pocket on front of ball. Imagine a line through these two points. Aim CCB parallel to this line.

The interesting tidbit of information here is finding the contact point on the CB. Some of the similar parallel aim systems tell you to find this point by finding a line parallel to the OB shot line. This one appears to be easier, but which is correct?

mdxnKiT.png
Click to expand...

I have several students that prefer using the TOI to the contact point, and this is basically what you're describing here. You can't aim the center, so you have to "aim" a part of the cue ball to the INSIDE to make the necessary allowance. I don't see anything wrong with this if you prefer aiming at contact points, I prefer to "create anges" as opposed to "aiming," but "to each their own". 'The Game is the Teacher'
 
Since CJ made his comments about aiming at contact points, I'd like to add that someone recently made a comment about looking for a system that would allow aiming the cue stick at the points on the OB. I pointed out that on larger angled cuts the cue would need to be aligned out past the edge of the OB. To take that even further, when one is hitting center ball the cue stick is never aligned to the contact point except on straight in shots. On all other shots the cue stick would be aligned parallel to the actual contact point to varying degrees.

When using my equal & opposite fractional overlap method I never aimed at a contact point. It's a perceptional thing, especially when using english, its about determining what needs to be done to get that portion of the CB to make contact with that portion of the OB. The 'aim' or alignment is never at the contact point. Perhaps that is why I like TOI since coming from using english. They are both something other than trying to hit the center of the CB & they are both dynamic in nature as the focus is off from the center of the CB with a plan in mind.

Just my thoughts spured by CJ's comment about contact points.

Regards & Best Wishes to All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
I just thought I'd throw this out there for good conversation. I did not make it up, it's been around since the beginning of time. Does anyone make practical use of this at the table?

The premise: find the contact point on OB through center of pocket on back of ball. Find contact point on CB through center of pocket on front of ball. Imagine a line through these two points. Aim CCB parallel to this line.

The interesting tidbit of information here is finding the contact point on the CB. Some of the similar parallel aim systems tell you to find this point by finding a line parallel to the OB shot line. This one appears to be easier, but which is correct? ...
Click to expand...

nobcitypool said:
... I have in fact played around with that system. It is easy to see it is geometrically correct. ...
Click to expand...

No, the method mohrt illustrated in post #1 is not geometrically correct. It is an improper method for finding the contact point needed on the CB. In mohrt's illustration, the contact point on the OB is at about 4:30 (as we look at the picture in its given orientation) and the "contact point" shown on the CB is at about 9:30. This is geometrically incorrect. The needed contact point on the CB would be at about 10:30, i.e., at the equal but opposite point from the contact point on the OB. [From directly behind the CB, looking at the OB, the locations would be approximately 8:30 on the OB and 2:30 on the CB -- 6 hours apart on a clock face.]

And, yes, mohrt, the method you mentioned of finding the intended contact point on the CB by using a line parallel to the first line through the OB is geometrically correct. And so is the method mentioned by ENGLISH! of finding equal but opposite fractional overlaps.
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
I just thought I'd throw this out there for good conversation. I did not make it up, it's been around since the beginning of time. Does anyone make practical use of this at the table?

The premise: find the contact point on OB through center of pocket on back of ball. Find contact point on CB through center of pocket on front of ball. Imagine a line through these two points. Aim CCB parallel to this line.

The interesting tidbit of information here is finding the contact point on the CB. Some of the similar parallel aim systems tell you to find this point by finding a line parallel to the OB shot line. This one appears to be easier, but which is correct?

mdxnKiT.png
Click to expand...

It's like I said in my thread the other day. The important factor is that you believe in what you are doing. Either contact point that you presented will work as long as you can see the ball going in the pocket. They both get you close enough to the shot line and the subconscious is what will execute the shot anyways if you are playing right. Once the analyzing is done then the conscious mind should be through, the sub will make the adjustments needed if you believe.
 
Last edited:
(((Satori))) said:
It's like I said in my thread the other day. The important factor is that you believe in what you are doing. Either contact point that you presented will work as long as you can see the ball going in the pocket. They both get you close enough to the shot line and the subconscious is what will execute the shot anyways if you are playing right. Once the analyzing is done then the conscious mind should be through, the sub will make the adjustments needed if you believe.
Click to expand...

Since I've been playing with TOI & using just the CTC & CTE alignments, I have been over ruling my subconscious in a way & the result is generally a mis. Or I should say that my subconscious is telling me that some of the CTE shots are not right & the fight between him & my conscious recognition is causing me problems with some of the shots due to the doubt because my subconscious can not tell me why they are not right he just tells me that they are not. I'm sure you understand what I mean.

Best Regards & Wishes,
Rick
 
gazman100 said:
isn't this called "Contact point aiming".
Click to expand...

Not quite. In contact point aiming the idea is to match up the contact points but it's done a different way. Also as Neil said in another thread CP aiming is also more about finding the cp, which is fairly easy as you only need to sight the OB through the pocket, and then kind of let your feel take over to get on the right line that sends the cb to that point correctly.

This method is a lot more involved than that. But I actually found that it works pretty good on some shots and then on other shots it was tricky. Lot of mental work here shot by shot.
 
Two legendary players who taught to find the shot line this way were Willie Mosconi and Jimmy Reid. They both taught method number two.
 
AtLarge said:
No, the method mohrt illustrated in post #1 is not geometrically correct. It is an improper method for finding the contact point needed on the CB. In mohrt's illustration, the contact point on the OB is at about 4:30 (as we look at the picture in its given orientation) and the "contact point" shown on the CB is at about 9:30. This is geometrically incorrect. The needed contact point on the CB would be at about 10:30, i.e., at the equal but opposite point from the contact point on the OB. [From directly behind the CB, looking at the OB, the locations would be approximately 8:30 on the OB and 2:30 on the CB -- 6 hours apart on a clock face.]

And, yes, mohrt, the method you mentioned of finding the intended contact point on the CB by using a line parallel to the first line through the OB is geometrically correct. And so is the method mentioned by ENGLISH! of finding equal but opposite fractional overlaps.
Click to expand...

Oops, you're correct. The system he is referring to is geometrically correct. The diagram he drew isn't.
 
This is basically Joe Tucker's aiming by numbers system. He uses points along the rails to determine a contact point between 0 and 9 and then uses the same contact point on the CB and the OB - connects the two and the balls go.
 
nobcitypool said:
I'd like to understand what is simple about that system? LOL You need a protractor, tape measure and possibly slide rule to get everything precise enough on many cuts for it to have a chance to be successful.

I have in fact played around with that system. It is easy to see it is geometrically correct. However, finding that exact point on THE FRONT OF THE CB while standing behind it then moving in parallel to the CCB is a bit of a challenge. Using that system would be as silly as someone trying to be good using Ghost Ball.
Click to expand...

This is the system Mosconi used, but in case you think he could consciously find the exact point on both the cue ball and the object ball and then consciously aim to connect the two points that are less than the size of a bb on 500+ shots in a row, I'm here to say that that is not bow it works.

Lucky for us we have a subconscious mind that can calculate exactly how to make the shots once we give it a clear picture of what we want to accomplish. The conscious mind can only juggle about 5--10 thoughts at a time so there is no way that it can direct every muscle to line up on the shot correctly.

We can use a system such as this to get that picture in our head and then we trust that the sub will perform. This is sometimes a hard concept to understand. I have seen players play for years and never learn how to trust their aim. They get down and try their hardest to find the exact points and get them lined up. The conscious mind can't consistently do that.

I've even seen players goofing off and not giving it much thought while they are talking or something and they are firing balls in left and right and then I say see you can do it and they say I could never do that if I try. Duh! That's the point!

Consciously determine the shot you are going to perform and use a system that lines you up as close as you can get, picture the shot in your head in as much detail and then trust.
 
(((Satori))) said:
This is the system Mosconi used, but in case you think he could consciously find the exact point on both the cue ball and the object ball and then consciously aim to connect the two points that are less than the size of a bb on 500+ shots in a row, I'm here to say that that is not bow it works.

Lucky for us we have a subconscious mind that can calculate exactly how to make the shots once we give it a clear picture of what we want to accomplish. The conscious mind can only juggle about 5--10 thoughts at a time so there is no way that it can direct every muscle to line up on the shot correctly.

We can use a system such as this to get that picture in our head and then we trust that the sub will perform. This is sometimes a hard concept to understand. I have seen players play for years and never learn how to trust their aim. They get down and try their hardest to find the exact points and get them lined up. The conscious mind can't consistently do that.

I've even seen players goofing off and not giving it much thought while they are talking or something and they are firing balls in left and right and then I say see you can do it and they say I could never do that if I try. Duh! That's the point!

Consciously determine the shot you are going to perform and use a system that lines you up as close as you can get, picture the shot in your head in as much detail and then trust.
Click to expand...

Actually while this - Mohrt's diagram - is similar it is not what was diagrammed in Mosconi's book. That one is where you find the CP on the OB and then parallel shift that line to find the CP on the CB. Mohrt's diagram skips that step and in fact the point that is chosen by Mohrt's (and the same one I came up with two years ago) is often slightly different than the Mosconi method and thus is not geometrically correct and does not track to the GB for all shots. I found this out with closer examination using Corel Draw two years ago.

And we don't really know if Mosconi used this or any aiming system. This method was in the book that bore Mosconi's name but that book was written by someone else. Back in those days a staff writer would often be paired with a well known sports star to write an instructional book. Often the content in the book was simply approved by the star but not neccesarily what they themselves did.

Keep in mind Mosconi had been playing since he was five. He epitomized the Million Balls method.
 
JB Cases said:
Actually while this - Mohrt's diagram - is similar it is not what was diagrammed in Mosconi's book. That one is where you find the CP on the OB and then parallel shift that line to find the CP on the CB. Mohrt's diagram skips that step and in fact the point that is chosen by Mohrt's (and the same one I came up with two years ago) is often slightly different than the Mosconi method and thus is not geometrically correct and does not track to the GB for all shots. I found this out with closer examination using Corel Draw two years ago.

And we don't really know if Mosconi used this or any aiming system. This method was in the book that bore Mosconi's name but that book was written by someone else. Back in those days a staff writer would often be paired with a well known sports star to write an instructional book. Often the content in the book was simply approved by the star but not neccesarily what they themselves did.

Keep in mind Mosconi had been playing since he was five. He epitomized the Million Balls method.
Click to expand...

Actually I already pointed out that Mosconi used parallel earlier in the thread and it is not only in his book which might not have been written by him but it is his video where it IS him explaining the system.

He is dead now, RIP, so we can't ask him if he used it but Jimmy Reid is still alive. Call him up and ask if what I have described is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top