Aim the Tip

[duckie]

Here is the basic geometry for everyshot, no matter how you get the CB there.

I'll let yall figure it out because I've written enough about this. Also, this shows the only true way to aim with the cue stick tip.

Oh, it also shows the value of training with the arrow cause the GB contact patch is at the point of the arrow.

 

[cookie man]

Then why are some pros talking about variations of it? I think it's old news, but still a formidable weapon in the right hands.

The best way to see how this system can work is to demonstrate how the eyes work together. Look at a near object and then close each eye, one at a time. The object moves in our field of vision, but remains physically static. This use of visual perception is the key to aligning for thinner cuts. With this in mind I figured the rest out for myself. It is a contact point aiming system with some adjustment for typical extreme close shots, extreme english shots, etc., as are all aiming methods.

Most people are rooted in a visually linear approach and don't allow the information from the non-dominant eye to blend and alter their aiming perception. The 800 pound gorilla is sitting in the room, but you don't see it because you're not looking for it. :wink:

I know this is heresy and currently not diagrammed, but it's not an eye trick . Instead, it is a valid method of using the eyes in unison. Not being a popular theory with some posters, this simplistic approach is the benchmark for the system and its many offshoots.

I am currently working on a contact point banking system using some of these principles. You use a contact point on the object ball and don't use the diamonds. In fact you only use the rails to estimate the general angle you want to send the object ball. I know that's painful to hear, but it's like the spot on the wall and mirror image systems, without the props. It's the nutz on controlling the object ball on safeties where you bank the ball. It uses a principle like the stick aiming method.

While everybody was arguing about these systems, I spent my time doing the homework. If this post makes sense to anybody, I may continue. Flame on!

Best,
Mike

I would love to hear more.

 

[LAMas]

If you do what is in the youtube video referenced earlier, thin shots don't work.

I concur, but if one starts to use the center of the shaft to aim and incorporates the side of the shaft as in the vid for some range of shots; then he can "progress" to using contact point to contact point aiming - all the way to edge of CB to edge of OB for very thin cuts.

Just saying.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

I use the PRS, or Post Reference System.
Over near the table where I usually play One Pocket is a post. I use that post as a reference point for almost all of my shots.
On a good day I'll probably only make about sixty-five per cent of them, but I figure that's not bad considering the guys I hang out with can't shoot pool worth a shit anyway.
Always remember that everything is relative in pool.

 

[LAMas]

I use the PRS, or Post Reference System.
Over near the table where I usually play One Pocket is a post. I use that post as a reference point for almost all of my shots.
On a good day I'll probably only make about sixty-five per cent of them, but I figure that's not bad considering the guys I hang out with can't shoot pool worth a shit anyway.
Always remember that everything is relative in pool.

Would it matter if someone moved the post...like over to AZ NPR?

That might require you to conduct a post mortem of your game.:thumbup:

 

[One Pocket John]

Then why are some pros talking about variations of it? I think it's old news, but still a formidable weapon in the right hands.

The best way to see how this system can work is to demonstrate how the eyes work together. Look at a near object and then close each eye, one at a time. The object moves in our field of vision, but remains physically static. This use of visual perception is the key to aligning for thinner cuts. With this in mind I figured the rest out for myself. It is a contact point aiming system with some adjustment for typical extreme close shots, extreme english shots, etc., as are all aiming methods.

Most people are rooted in a visually linear approach and don't allow the information from the non-dominant eye to blend and alter their aiming perception. The 800 pound gorilla is sitting in the room, but you don't see it because you're not looking for it. :wink:

I know this is heresy and currently not diagrammed, but it's not an eye trick . Instead, it is a valid method of using the eyes in unison. Not being a popular theory with some posters, this simplistic approach is the benchmark for the system and its many offshoots.

I am currently working on a contact point banking system using some of these principles. You use a contact point on the object ball and don't use the diamonds. In fact you only use the rails to estimate the general angle you want to send the object ball. I know that's painful to hear, but it's like the spot on the wall and mirror image systems, without the props. It's the nutz on controlling the object ball on safeties where you bank the ball. It uses a principle like the stick aiming method.

While everybody was arguing about these systems, I spent my time doing the homework. If this post makes sense to anybody, I may continue. Flame on!

Best,
Mike

I would also like to hear more Mike.

I shoot with my dominant eye and what you say is true. Line up a shot with your dominate eye then close it, you will see the difference. Sticks out like a soar thumb.

Thanks

John

 

[Tramp Steamer]

Would it matter if someone moved the post...like over to AZ NPR?

That might require you to conduct a post mortem of your game.:thumbup:

LAMas, my friend, we are not that lucky I'm afraid.

 

[Palmerfan]

I have been doing this since 1962. I shoot thru the cue ball like its not even there. I shoot directly at the OB with my cue stick never taking my eyes off of the contact point. You can see where you are going to hit the QB in your peripheral vision.

But there is alot more to this than illustrated. If your not hitting the OB contact point then your pre-shot line up and stance need to be looked at.

The bridge is the front sight and the butt of the cue is the rear sight, the QB is the bullet. Like a rifle if the front and rear sights are not lined up correctly you cant expect the bullet to hit the target. So don't try to watch the bullet keep your eyes on the target.

Thanks

John

John do you use the right side of the tip and the left side for right / left cuts, or do you just aim center of the tip through the cueball at the contact point on OB?

 

[Palmerfan]

In the video, the system is described as always aiming the edge of the shaft at the contact point on the object ball. According to the system, if the edge of the shaft were aimed at the edge of the object ball, you would get a 90-degree cut. That's clearly very, very wrong. The system has large errors for nearly all cut angles, but the errors for thin cuts are enormous. This is pretty simple geometry.

But the system is not based on geometry. The system gets you to pay attention to the contact point -- which is good -- and makes you pay attention to stick alignment -- which is good. With practice, the system will give you some kind of aiming framework. The system might be described as a perceptual or psychological system, but it is not a geometrically accurate system.

Whether the system will be helpful to any particular person depends on that person and how they apply it. Personally, because I can see the gross geometric errors in the system, I could never trust it.

If this is really the way Sigel plays/played pool and he used this method as his only or primary way of aim (don't think he would have covered it in his DVD if not)...I would have to think it has tremendous merit and I don't think one of the greatest players whose ever touched a cue would use a system with "gross geometric errors"..whether or not you trust it is on you and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but that man is too gifted to use a system so grossly inaccurate..just a common sense opinion. I would never question the way Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods strike a golf ball..although they do it VERY differently..if it works for the greats then who am I to argue the geometry of their swings..both seem to work pretty well.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... and I don't think one of the greatest players whose ever touched a cue would use a system with "gross geometric errors".. ...

Which is why I'm pretty sure that Sigel doesn't use the system as described in the video without adjustments. I think the geometry part is pretty easy to work out. I think that even accurate drawings would show the problems pretty quickly. As I said, the system to the extent that it works is not a geometrical system. And that's OK.

 

[Palmerfan]

Gonna try it

Which is why I'm pretty sure that Sigel doesn't use the system as described in the video without adjustments. I think the geometry part is pretty easy to work out. I think that even accurate drawings would show the problems pretty quickly. As I said, the system to the extent that it works is not a geometrical system. And that's OK.

I'm gonna take a few hours and try it for myself today, shooting from the sides of the tip first and then shooting center of the tip straight through the OB to the aim point..if it works for me..great..if not i'll keep searching. I've been using pivot..both half tip and half ball, but I would like a secondary reference before i finally shoot and ghost ball doesn't seem to work for me.

 

[SirNoobs]

I've tried it, it only seems to work for medium to short ranged shots. It didn't work consistently for me so I just went back to my old way of doing things: ghost ballin' and trusting my stance/stroke to line me up correctly.

 

[dr_dave]

I'm gonna take a few hours and try it for myself today, shooting from the sides of the tip first and then shooting center of the tip straight through the OB to the aim point..if it works for me..great..if not i'll keep searching. I've been using pivot..both half tip and half ball, but I would like a secondary reference before i finally shoot and ghost ball doesn't seem to work for me.

If you are good at visualizing the contact point, you might like the contact-point-parallel-lines aiming method.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Mikjary]

Check your setup to make thin cuts. If you are cutting to the left, your left eye should be looking at the left cue ball edge to the right object ball edge. This is the first step to set up your eyes to learn the method.

Best,
Mike

 

[Shaft]

You can break the laws of man, but NO ONE can break the laws of physics.

One law of pool physics is that in order for the OB to fall, the CB MUST hit it from the ghost ball position (give or take a little for the pocket size and for throw). Period. I don't care how you get the CB there, it must be at the ghost ball position (plus or minus a small margin of error).

Bob Jewitt and Dr. Dave are correct that the geometry here is pretty easy to verify and the method as demonstrated will work, but only for a limited range of angles, or with a LOT of subconscious adjustment.

Note in the video that all the angles are about 15-30 degrees, the shots are short, and a few shots almost rattle out of the pocket, even at this close range. Clearly some of them would have missed if the distance had been longer.

If you can "see" the "contact point," that is awesome! So why not aim at the ghost ball? It is geometrically correct everytime (as long as you remember to make a small aiming adjustment for throw/friction).

This is not flaming. This is constructive discussion.

 

[cookie man]

You can break the laws of man, but NO ONE can break the laws of physics.

One law of pool physics is that in order for the OB to fall, the CB MUST hit it from the ghost ball position (give or take a little for the pocket size and for throw). Period. I don't care how you get the CB there, it must be at the ghost ball position (plus or minus a small margin of error).

Bob Jewitt and Dr. Dave are correct that the geometry here is pretty easy to verify and the method as demonstrated will work, but only for a limited range of angles, or with a LOT of subconscious adjustment.

Note in the video that all the angles are about 15-30 degrees, the shots are short, and a few shots almost rattle out of the pocket, even at this close range. Clearly some of them would have missed if the distance had been longer.

If you can "see" the "contact point," that is awesome! So why not aim at the ghost ball? It is geometrically correct everytime (as long as you remember to make a small aiming adjustment for throw/friction).

This is not flaming. This is constructive discussion.

Aim at a ghostball, never seen one.

 

[Palmerfan]

You can break the laws of man, but NO ONE can break the laws of physics.

One law of pool physics is that in order for the OB to fall, the CB MUST hit it from the ghost ball position (give or take a little for the pocket size and for throw). Period. I don't care how you get the CB there, it must be at the ghost ball position (plus or minus a small margin of error).

Bob Jewitt and Dr. Dave are correct that the geometry here is pretty easy to verify and the method as demonstrated will work, but only for a limited range of angles, or with a LOT of subconscious adjustment.

Note in the video that all the angles are about 15-30 degrees, the shots are short, and a few shots almost rattle out of the pocket, even at this close range. Clearly some of them would have missed if the distance had been longer.

If you can "see" the "contact point," that is awesome! So why not aim at the ghost ball? It is geometrically correct everytime (as long as you remember to make a small aiming adjustment for throw/friction).

This is not flaming. This is constructive discussion.

I don't like aiming at imaginary things. I would rather aim at something I can see.

 

[GaryB]

As has been discussed before some people don't see the ghost ball all that well much less the "small adjustments" you mention. This is why there are other aiming methods.

 

[brophog]

You can break the laws of man, but NO ONE can break the laws of physics.

There are no 'laws' of physics. There are simply the most accepted theories at the time.

Newtonian physics would appear to be absolute, but we eventually find that they are not absolutes but merely seemed an absolute in the grand scale. We eventually discovered that their appearance was nothing more than sample error. Not that they are not valid, nor useful, but no longer absolute. Science makes discoveries that would invalidate idea previously held absolute almost on a daily basis.

That's how science works.

The problem with laws, whether of man or science, is that they are absolute by their nature and it is really rare that you ever find something that is truly absolute.

 

[Mikjary]

You can break the laws of man, but NO ONE can break the laws of physics.

One law of pool physics is that in order for the OB to fall, the CB MUST hit it from the ghost ball position (give or take a little for the pocket size and for throw). Period. I don't care how you get the CB there, it must be at the ghost ball position (plus or minus a small margin of error).

Bob Jewitt and Dr. Dave are correct that the geometry here is pretty easy to verify and the method as demonstrated will work, but only for a limited range of angles, or with a LOT of subconscious adjustment.

Note in the video that all the angles are about 15-30 degrees, the shots are short, and a few shots almost rattle out of the pocket, even at this close range. Clearly some of them would have missed if the distance had been longer.

If you can "see" the "contact point," that is awesome! So why not aim at the ghost ball? It is geometrically correct everytime (as long as you remember to make a small aiming adjustment for throw/friction).

This is not flaming. This is constructive discussion.

Shaft,

Thank you for your civil and detailed answer. Some thoughts...

If you use ghost ball or the contact point, the results are the same. Using the stick to aim is a guide to show us a direct path to a contact point.

There is no subconscious adjustment. I look at a contact point. If you are not able to see the contact point on thinner shots, you haven't worked with the system enough.

Some players will see the thin cuts immediately. I've found some don't. After some coaching there is always an aha moment and, "I didn't notice that before!". We all use our eyes in different ways. This is just one way. Not a trick or subconscious illusion. Our stereoscopic vision points right at a contact point.

As far as knowledgeable persons and their mathematical and physical reckoning, this method aims at a contact point. Why is it possibly not acceptable to them? Your eyes and visual perceptions are absolutely a demonstrable fact of pool. If anybody wants to dismiss this facet of aiming, they need to update their syllabus...get their ticket punched. The train is leaving the station. A Google search of the last decade plus, brings up a lot of reasons why we should stop dismissing these "new" ideas and work on some answers. We should quit using "subconscious", as the back door for our patronizingly, comfortable escape.

I'm not a PhD, but I understand these systems and have been working on more of them. Why hasn't the academia worked on them? I haven't given out half of what I've learned on this method. I stated a couple of simple facts and will get few takers. Instead of feedback and possible interest, except from the same few posters, we'll still be business as usual. Nothing new in pool will ever be (re)discovered. We've maxed out so stop trying to rock the boat. Instead, let's talk about tips and chalk. I've been using Blue Diamond, but it's a mess on my 860HR. I'm on the fence about Kamui tips, though.

Best,
Mike