Aiming systems

[av84fun]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I'm simply unable to parse your syntax. But if you're wondering why a system should be able to put the object ball in the middle of the pocket, as opposed to somewhere generally in the pocket, I've explained that in a different article and several times on the 'net.

Let me try again. You stated that any system that directs the OB to the center of the actual pocket is "broken."

My response was that the only problem with directing the OB to the center of the pocket is the fact that, depending on the approach angle, one or the other points of the pocket would block the OB from proceding to the center of the pocket and therefore, the protrusion of the points into the opening of the actual pocket must be accounted for in any aiming system.

I'm quite sure that we both are on the same page here i.e. that if you aim such that the OB will travel on a path leading it to contact the back center of the actual pocket you are going to miss...A LOT...which is why, I presume, you quite correctly stated that any such system was broken and a waste of time.

Since you couldn't be more correct nor could I understand that issue more thoroughly, the system accounts for that problem whenever contacting the back of the pocket would not be possible for the reasons cited.

But if you're wondering why a system should be able to put the object ball in the middle of the pocket, as opposed to somewhere generally in the pocket, I've explained that in a different article and several times on the 'net

Now I'm having a problem with your syntax. A) My BASIC system DOES direct the OB to the middle of the pocket and B) it adjusts for the utter inability to "put the object ball in the middle of the pocket" when the points obviously make doing so impossible.

For clarity, I am sure we both understand that there is always a "middle of the pocket" available...but that the available pocket "moves" right or left depending on which point blocks the actual pocket such that we need to include the jaw facing which represents a significant portion of the available pocket...and if you don't account for the invasion of the point into the actual pocket opening your are going to miss.

Are we on the same page...at least to this extent now?

THANKS for your input.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...by suggesting that 6 is not enough, you imply that you can accurate cite the degree of variation from an intended path for every 1 degree of error...per foot of OB travel. I would very much appreciate your sharing that data with me...without which your notion is just a guess.

I answered this question in another thread (before I saw your question here, sorry). In fact, the majority of shots cannot be made with 6 contact points beyond about 2 feet. At 3 feet only 1/3 of all shots can be made and at 5 feet only 1/5 of all shots can be made, even taking into account the margin for error with very generous (5.5") pockets (and no adjustments for angles into the pockets reducing their apparent size).

My "notion" is neither a guess nor intuitive nor, in fact, a notion. It's a geometric fact that's been calculated many times before and reported on this board more than once.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeW]

Thank you av84fun. I found your post most interesting and one that is worth submitting to an empirical test, which I will do. It is unfortunate that so many people on this board are more into finding fault than attempting to assist with learning something new.

Science is first of all an empirical endeavor. Math is a tool that we use to enhance our ability to analyze observations. I think you knew that but point it out for interested critical know it alls or those readers who judge without attempting to find the usefulness in the idea. The person who creates ideas that can be tested is far ahead of the critic.

I think that you have made a contribution, your detractors are not being helpful (except perhaps Bob) they simply are attempting to squash a new idea. What a shame.

The Dean of an engineering school used to tell a story about the difference between an engineer and a physicist. During their respective oral exams each candidate was told they could jump half way to a naked Farah Fawcett (its and old story). The problem was to get as close as possible. The physicist said that the problem was impossible because he could never reach her. The engineer immediately jumped. Now there s a true scientist for you.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
Respect back at ya, but there's nothing intuitive about my response

av84fun:
Sorry to disagree with you but you haven't tested the system (which I just posted moments ago) and therefore, your response was intuitive by definition.

Yes, in fact I have tested the system - it's no different from several other "limited angles" systems which have been tested endlessly both practically (shooting actual shots) and theoretically (making diagrams and calculating angles), both of which I and others have done repeatedly.

The result of all these tests? Your system simply doesn't work as you say - for the majority of shots (the VAST majority when the shot is over 3 feet or so), some aim adjustment must be made. In fact, the only "limited angles" system that I've seen that actually works as advertised is Joe Tucker's, and his only works because it has more system angles (9 each way) and he says you have to shoot between the system's angles to make many shots.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What difference does it make if a person THINKS he/she is aiming at X when he/she is actually aiming at Y...IF THE SHOTS GO DOWN CONSISTANTLY!

It doesn't make any difference to me - more power to them. But that's not how you claim your system works. If you said that the shooter must make adjustments to pocket most of the shots encountered in normal play, either consciously or unconsciously, I wouldn't argue with you. But you say the shooter doesn't have to adjust from the system for the "VAST majority of shots" - and this is simply wrong.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

As the ball moves back away from the pocket, the margin of error decreases proportionally...fine. But the REQUIRED CONTACT POINT does not reduce to the width of the surface contact of the balls except for VERY long and/or VERY thin cuts.

This doesn't make any sense to me. What does "reduce to the width of the surface contact of the balls" mean? I think you may have some incorrect notions about what's necessary to make shots.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

This doesn't make any sense to me. What does "reduce to the width of the surface contact of the balls" mean? I think you may have some incorrect notions about what's necessary to make shots.

pj
chgo

Sorry you didn't grasp my comment. I'm sure you can grasp that when two balls are touching each other, a given width of their respective surface is in contact with each other.

The maximum number of practical aiming points is a function of how wide that surface contact area is. Think about putting a series of pencil dots on a piece of paper. How many dots will fit into an inch without the dots overlapping?

Obviously, those dots (and the analagous aiming points on a cue ball) can overlap such that the number of actual aming points would be nearly infinite under an electron microscope. That is why I said "practical" number of aiming points.

And ,just because you didn't understand my comment does not suggest that I don't know how to aim a pool shot...with all due respect.

Frankly, your thesis that no matter what aiming system is used, the player as actually using some other method subconsciously is what suggests...at the very least...a degree of confusion over aiming.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

 

[Bob Jewett]

... . You stated that any system that directs the OB to the center of the actual pocket is "broken." ...

I'm pretty certain that I said no such thing. Can you provide a quote?

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The maximum number of practical aiming points is a function of how wide that surface contact area is. ...

This is false. The width of the contact area has nothing to do with the number of aiming angles required to play well. Please try to understand Pat's other thread about that subject. And please understand that the number he comes up with is a minimum for mediocre play -- a good player will put the object ball much closer to the center of the pocket than is required by Pat's numbers.

To answer your question about the width of the contact area, it is about 5mm on a fairly hard shot and less on soft shots. This is easy to measure yourself if you think about it for a while.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Sorry you didn't grasp my comment. I'm sure you can grasp that when two balls are touching each other, a given width of their respective surface is in contact with each other.

I'll do my best to grasp this.

The maximum number of practical aiming points is a function of how wide that surface contact area is.

No, it's not. That contact area acts just as if it was a contact point located (I think) at the center of the area. This is what I meant when I said you may have some incorrect notions about what's necessary to make shots. I'm not saying you can't shoot; I'm saying your ideas about what's going on at the level of CB/OB interaction are mistaken.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

I answered this question in another thread (before I saw your question here, sorry). In fact, the majority of shots cannot be made with 6 contact points beyond about 2 feet. At 3 feet only 1/3 of all shots can be made and at 5 feet only 1/5 of all shots can be made, even taking into account the margin for error with very generous (5.5") pockets (and no adjustments for angles into the pockets reducing their apparent size).

My "notion" is neither a guess nor intuitive nor, in fact, a notion. It's a geometric fact that's been calculated many times before and reported on this board more than once.

pj
chgo

Here is what you are missing pj. I ever referred to 6 POINTS OF CONTACT ON THE CUE BALL that would have been an inadvertently incorrect portrayal of my system.

What I THINK I referred to and what I certainly INTENDED to refer to was 6 METHODS OF AIM by using the cue tip. What you will see from the following example, those 6 methods of aim result in a SUBSTANTIALLY greater number of points at which the CB will impact the OB which is one of the beauties of the system.

Please set up the following scenario and you will see exactly what I mean.

1. Place an OB on the head spot.

2. Place an OB at table center directly between the side pockets.

3. Place 4 other OBs next to the one in the center on a straight line toward the right side pocket.

4. Remove the ball at table center.

Now you have 4 balls positioned 1,2,3 and 4 balls right of table center and the LOC of each of those 4 running through the OB on the spot will fall between the center diamond and the 1st diamond on the foot rail from the left corner pocket. EACH of the LOCs require that the cue be aimed such that half of its surface covers the right edge of the OB and half of its surface is off the OB. Stated another way, a PINPOINT laser beam from the center of the top would point exactly at the right edge of the OB.

5. Now, shoot each of the four shots (using the lined up balls as CBs) with the above SINGLE AIMING METHOD and the dynamics of the system will be revealed to you.

As you will see for yourself, in spite of the fact that the position of the 4 "cue balls" spans a width of NINE INCHES, the shot is aimed using ONE SINGLE AIMING METHOD and it goes...EVERY TIME....DEAD CENTER.



Any one who feels that there is room for improvement in their shot making skills would do themselves a favor by just TRYING the one example above and let the system prove itself rather than arguing about it having never tried it.

Finally, please understand that I am well aware that over the years there has been an endless debate about aiming systems and that there have been a lot of "voodoo" methods discussed. Therefore, I am not at all surprised about the lack of patience many may have regarding yet another witch doctor spreading his voodoo. Trust me, I get that.

But just TRY the one example above and if you do it properly you might conclude that I am not quite as dumb as I look! (-:

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

I'm pretty certain that I said no such thing. Can you provide a quote?

Sure...
"Originally Posted by Bob Jewett
I think that any system that shoots balls to the back of the pocket liner is totally broken and not worth considering at all. If that is what your current system does, I feel that you should not waste our or your time with it."

My interpretation of your comment is that "center of the actual pocket" (my phrase) and "back of the pocket liner" (your phrase) are synonymous since a line draw through the center of the pocket opening touchs the back of the pocket liner.

Sorry, if that was not what you intended to convey but I think my interpretation was resonable.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

This is false. The width of the contact area has nothing to do with the number of aiming angles required to play well. Please try to understand Pat's other thread about that subject. And please understand that the number he comes up with is a minimum for mediocre play -- a good player will put the object ball much closer to the center of the pocket than is required by Pat's numbers.

To answer your question about the width of the contact area, it is about 5mm on a fairly hard shot and less on soft shots. This is easy to measure yourself if you think about it for a while.

With great respect, it is not false given my use of the word "practical" which I explained in another post.

Put ink on a white ball and press it against another white ball and something resembling a dot will appear measuring about 5mm as you point out (forgetting about a greater width due to compression on hard shots...which by that way, may be easy for YOU to measure just by thinking about it for a while...but not easy for many others) (-:

So, unless you overlap the dots on successive tries, then the width of 5mm would equate to one PRACTICAL point of contact...and it is a major stretch IMHO that humans can adjust their aim in 5mm increments anyway so the PRACTICAL number of contact points would be many fewer than 2.25 inches/5mm.

But Bob...PLEASE refer to another of my posts to pj wherein I explain that my system HAS NOTHING TO DO with aiming at POINTS OF CONTACT on the CB and that the 6 "aiming methods" will EACH cause the CB to contact the OB in SEVERAL different places.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the shot is aimed using ONE SINGLE AIMING METHOD and it goes...EVERY TIME....DEAD CENTER

..the CBs stike the OB at 4 different POINTS OF CONTACT USING ONE SINGLE METHOD OF AIM.

Simply put, it's utter nonsense that you can hit the OB on 4 different points of contact and it will hit the center of the pocket each time.

I'm frankly amazed that you can convince yourself of such a thing.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

I'll do my best to grasp this.



No, it's not. That contact area acts just as if it was a contact point located (I think) at the center of the area. This is what I meant when I said you may have some incorrect notions about what's necessary to make shots. I'm not saying you can't shoot; I'm saying your ideas about what's going on at the level of CB/OB interaction are mistaken.

pj
chgo

Hey...fight fair!! (-: Actually, I don't view this as a fight AT ALL...just kidding.

But you left out the central thesis of my comments to you which was why I put the word "practical" in bold. The human eye and physical coordination will not allow a player to aim at microscopic increments so there IS a LIMITED number of contact points that can be PRACTICALLY aimed at.

But as noted in another of my posts to you, the system has nothing to do with aiming at contact points and so we should probably drop this line of inquiry as moot.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Cuebacca]

Any one who feels that there is room for improvement in their shot making skills would do themselves a favor by just TRYING the one example above and let the system prove itself rather than arguing about it having never tried it.

Finally, please understand that I am well aware that over the years there has been an endless debate about aiming systems and that there have been a lot of "voodoo" methods discussed. Therefore, I am not at all surprised about the lack of patience many may have regarding yet another witch doctor spreading his voodoo. Trust me, I get that.

..............

 

[av84fun]

Simply put, it's utter nonsense that you can hit the OB on 4 different points of contact and it will hit the center of the pocket each time.

I'm frankly amazed that you can convince yourself of such a thing.

pj
chgo

But you don't seem to have set up the example nor paid much attention to my description of the system...which I repeat...HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY ATTEMPT TO AIM THE CUE BALL AT ANY SPECIFIC POINT OF CONTACT ON THE OB.

Bottom line, anyone who sets up the example will learn FOR A FACT that the OB will go dead center with the SAME AIMING METHOD in spite of the fact that the CB has been moved a significant distance. And that by using one of 6 AIMING METHODS, the correct CONTACT POINT will be struck.

PLEASE make a reasonable attempt to understand the system before you condemn either it or my understanding of aiming techniques...which is rather advanced if I may throw caution to the wind.

Regards,

Jim

 

[av84fun]

View attachment 54744..............

No I won't. (-:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...for the OB to be directed down the exact same line when the CB is moved to 4 different places...4 different contact points MUST have been struck.

Wrong again. The same OB contact point must be struck to send the OB on the same path.

I'm more amazed than ever.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

JoeW...THANKS!!! I guess it's a little self-serving to give you rep for a post in my defense...but I did it anyway!!

(-: