Aiming Circles/Disks vs Aiming Spheres

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I remember a few years ago posting something about how aiming "spheres" was over-complicating the aiming process. I mentioned the fact that aiming two discs would be a simpler way of viewing the shot. I even recorded a shot using hockey pucks to demonstrate what I was talking about.

Well, here is a great example. This proves that there is no magical method for aiming spheres in order to pocket balls. It's all about the 2D visual of circles, connecting one circular object to another. With balls/spheres, all that matters is the contact point between the two equators, the two circles.

 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I remember a few years ago posting something about how aiming "spheres" was over-complicating the aiming process. I mentioned the fact that aiming two discs would be a simpler way of viewing the shot. I even recorded a shot using hockey pucks to demonstrate what I was talking about.
Using the CB/OB overlap visual is almost as simplified - like two discs standing on edge.

I like to visualize the spherical balls in contact, entirely by "learned recognition" - probably the least methodical of methods; I just seem to have a feel for it.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

snookered_again

Well-known member
I tend to aim for the tiny immaginary contact point that is opposite the pocket. am I looking at it incorrectly? of course that's ignoring spin, squirt etc..

Disks might be a simplistic way to describe things, until you consider how top or bottom affect the direction of the cueball after it leaves the object ball...
 

snookered_again

Well-known member
you point makes sense. If you wanted to find your way , you would look at a globe, you'd look at a map which would be flat. the fact that the earth is round is somewhat inconsequential unless you are talking great distances like flight patterns or ship bearings.

also my statement above has an obvious fly in the ointment, on a thin cut shot it's impossible to be aiming at the ball's contact point, , I may look at the edge of the ball I'm trying to hit during my lineup, but my stroke, and my cue actually needs to point at a distance away from the ball being cut. ball size changes that too. I must be compensating and perhaps I'm looking at things form a perspective that could be improved upon.
 
Last edited:

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm pretty sure aiming directly at the contact point is abaout as sure a method as any to miss, unless the shot is verynear straight in.
 

Thresh

Active member
I'm pretty sure aiming directly at the contact point is abaout as sure a method as any to miss, unless the shot is verynear straight in.
Any update on those CTE CAD models that you said where extremely easy to produce, but you never did produce them?

Are you going to use those math formulas, that had nothing to do with pool, but you claimed they did, very clearly, very obviously, they totally did, and they explained CTE? Of course they did, why wouldn't they? How couldn't they? Right?

Can you show that math yet?

Just wondering.....

If you can't, no big deal.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I remember a few years ago posting something about how aiming "spheres" was over-complicating the aiming process. I mentioned the fact that aiming two discs would be a simpler way of viewing the shot. I even recorded a shot using hockey pucks to demonstrate what I was talking about.

Well, here is a great example. This proves that there is no magical method for aiming spheres in order to pocket balls. It's all about the 2D visual of circles, connecting one circular object to another. With balls/spheres, all that matters is the contact point between the two equators, the two circles.

CTE works easily for this. Stan Shuffett teaches CTE using disks. Who is selling a magical method? No one that I have ever seen has advertised their method as magic?
 

lakeman77

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I remember a few years ago posting something about how aiming "spheres" was over-complicating the aiming process. I mentioned the fact that aiming two discs would be a simpler way of viewing the shot. I even recorded a shot using hockey pucks to demonstrate what I was talking about.

Well, here is a great example. This proves that there is no magical method for aiming spheres in order to pocket balls. It's all about the 2D visual of circles, connecting one circular object to another. With balls/spheres, all that matters is the contact point between the two equators, the two circles.

that's exactly it, you are 100% correct. like the video you posted too, many thanks
 
Top