Aiming systems
- Thread starter daveb
- Start date
Can you diagram this shot? I don't know which spot or which diamond you mean.
pj
chgo
These aiming threads are always the most entertaining. Before this turns into a 45-page thread, allow me to summarize:
1) CB to OB, OB to pocket
2) Pocket to OB, OB to CB
3) Pick a spot on the OB and make sure you hit it
4) Ghostball is the only system that works
5) Joe Tucker's system not only helps you aim, but helps you position as well
6) Fractional aiming. CB and OB into vertical slices.
7) Fractional aiming doesn't work, because there aren't enough solutions for the aiming possibilities
8) At this point in time, everyone argues how many aim points there really are
9) Right around this time, someone mentions Hal Houle and that a single aim system exists, and works extremely well......drumroll: ceeenter to eeeedge!
10) There's typically 2-3 pages associated on whether or not a single aim is possible, and then 1/2 the people say Hal is a genius and 1/2 think he's a Houligan and say that feel is the only way to aim
11) Eventually, the thread dies.... only to get resurrected in the near future.... with the exact same content.
Dave
1) CB to OB, OB to pocket
2) Pocket to OB, OB to CB
3) Pick a spot on the OB and make sure you hit it
4) Ghostball is the only system that works
5) Joe Tucker's system not only helps you aim, but helps you position as well
6) Fractional aiming. CB and OB into vertical slices.
7) Fractional aiming doesn't work, because there aren't enough solutions for the aiming possibilities
8) At this point in time, everyone argues how many aim points there really are
9) Right around this time, someone mentions Hal Houle and that a single aim system exists, and works extremely well......drumroll: ceeenter to eeeedge!
10) There's typically 2-3 pages associated on whether or not a single aim is possible, and then 1/2 the people say Hal is a genius and 1/2 think he's a Houligan and say that feel is the only way to aim
11) Eventually, the thread dies.... only to get resurrected in the near future.... with the exact same content.
Dave
Patrick Johnson said:
I'm glad that you said "almost" because, in fact, you are wrong. IT DOES work and you do not...by any stretch of the imagination, need "many" more than six points...WHY? because of the size of the table and the degree of error allowed by the width of the pocket.
If the table was 12 feet long then you would need more points because the degree of error expands....well....geometrically over distance.
But we don't play on 12 foot tables and the VAST majority of shots we play are WAY less than 9 feet. So, the system works because it HAS to...subject only to cueing or human error.
Regards,
Jim
Bob Jewett said:
Bob, thanks for your inquiry. Please know that I haven't published the entire system yet...will probably do so tonight...and you have hit on one of the exceptions...well not an exception actually but an ISSUE which is...as you know...that on the shot you describe (and all shots close to a rail) the AVAILABLE pocket moves...in this example to the left...because the right point of the corner pocket invades the ACTUAL pocket such that the back center of the actual pocket cannot be hit by an OB shot at that angle. (just as an aside...IMHO one of the most frequent causes of missed shots is the failure to account for the fact that the pocket moves...at least the available pocket does...but that is another topic).
But, nevertheless, in the example you cite, the aiming system need not be changed...only the PACE of the shot needs to be soft enough that OB impact with the side rail will not cause a miss.
That said, the shot you describe has a line of centers (LOC) that points to the second diamond up the right side rail. That is the same shot as a corner pocket shot where the LOC points to the middle diamond on the short rail.
In either case, under the conditions you cited, aim the LEFT edge of the cue tip to the RIGHT edge of the OB...and it drops...every time...as I just confirmed on my own table.
But as you will see...in the shot you describe, the back dead center of the actual pocket (which is where the system will direct the OB) is entirely blocked by the right point. You have the same width of AVAILABLE pocket but you have to use the left pocket facing to achieve that width...and if you shoot too hard, you are likely to rattle the shot...just as if you shoot too hard and impact the side rail (with the OB traveling directly toward the back center of the actual pocket) you can miss that way too.
I'll post the full system later.
Regards,
Jim
pdcue said:
With respect, both you and Mr. Johnson are incorrect and I suggest that actual attempts and not intuitive responses should be posted.
In fact, unless one is an entirely intuitive player and has no idea WHY they aim where they do...except that it just feels right...then EVERY aiming technique is to a "limited aim point" and therefore, your statement that ALL limited aim point methods are wrong is facially incorrect.
Please know that I demonstrated this system to a WORLD CHAMPION pro who verified that my cue tip aiming points directed the cue tip to the exact same spot as it was directed when using his/her aiming method (which is a fractional method by the way).
I actually stood behind him/her when he/she locked on to his/her aim and TOLD him/her where his/her tip was pointing with reference to the OB.
He/she was quite surprised that I could tell him/her EXACTLY where the tip was pointing when standing several feet behind him/her so as to be unable to even SEE the cue tip.
All I needed to see was the line of centers and I knew where the tip was pointing.
(-:
Jim
Patrick Johnson said:
Sorry...I have no clue how to create a diagram...but let me try again.
CB is on the FOOT spot where the balls are racked. OB is slightly off the RIGHT rail, 2 diamonds up from the RIGHT corner...assuming you are standing behind the foot rail facing the head rail.
I hope that is more clear. And that shot is a COOL prop bet. Everyone will give you 3 tries and most will give you 4 or 5.
HINT: Shoot WAS softer than you think you have to on such a thin cut...assuming you are playing on fast cloth. Shooting hard only increases the chances of a cueing error and therefore a miss.
DO NOT use outside english...or any other. Dead center ball or you will get a little squirt that will ruin the shot.
When you start out practicing you will almost always hit too fat for fear of missing the OB entirely.
And the move of the cue tip SLIGHTLY to the right is just something you have to develop a feel for because "slightly" has no precise measure...but to ME it looks like I am moving the cue tip ONE tip to the right...for the left cut described.
But a SMOOTH dead center, medium pace is the key.
Regards,
Jim
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.av84fun said:
I think you would better spend your time working on a system that sends the object ball to the "effective, useful, practical" center of the pocket. There is a single point on the cloth that is such a center for each pocket. It is not hard to figure out where it is once you know it exists. All shots to a particular pocket can be sent to that one spot and they will all go in with close to equal margin for error on either side.
I urge you to rework your system to use those centers.
SpiderWebComm said:
Well, that's sort of an indictment of the search for knowledge. I would remind you that such theories as whether squirt is maximized with a stiff or flexible cue have only fairly recently been utterly reversed by scientific studies.
In addition, Bob Jewett within the past few days commented on OB path variables caused by top, stun and draw and said that the dynamics he referred to were unknown to the pool world until a few years ago...AND I AM DYING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT BOB!!!! (-:
Finally, unless you assume that no current or former world champion uses an aiming system (an assumption that would be blatantly incorrect) then you must conclude that SOME aiming system is correct for SOME players.
I readily admit that what works for A may well not work for B due to issues of visual perception, playing style etc.
But just for example, it is well known that Allision Fisher uses a fractional system and she doesn't miss a whole lot wouldn't you agree?
Finally, (absent cueing variables for which no system exits) it is an irrefutable FACT that a pool table is a geometric shape and therefore, there MUST be an EXACT geometric solution to every problem faced thereon. The only issue being what the solution is.
So, pooh poohing the search for that solution exhibits a somewhat stolid attitude IMHO.
Regards,
Jim
It was explained in detail with diagrams and numbers and a procedure you can do yourself to see how it works on your table in the May 2006 issue of Billiards Digest. If you don't have a copy of that issue -- but any serious student of the game will -- see http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2006-05.pdfav84fun said:
Bob Jewett said:
Bob...please let me post the system. All factors except for cueing variables are systematized.
Having said that, any system that can direct the OB to ANY exact point on the table with great consistency (absent cueing variables) seems noteworthy to me.
In addition, I don't understand why getting the OB to go DEAD CENTER into the pocket is problematic especially when the only troublesome aspect is the invasion of the actual pocket by the points which is fully accounted for in the system.
But again, please let me post the system before too much praise or damnation is levied upon me!! (-:
Regards,
Jim
Edit: "I think you would better spend your time working on a system that sends the object ball to the "effective, useful, practical" center of the pocket. "
Right. The system discusses what I refer to as the "available pocket" as opposed to the "actual pocket." But in my mind, one should only adjust when the actual pocket is not available i.e. why NOT play dead center when doing so provides you with a margin of error in both directions...unless you are intentionally cheating the pocket for shape?
Last edited:
mikepage said:
On one far end of the spectrum, there are players that play by:
"See ball, make ball. Me not know how me make ball."
Somewhere in the middle are the ghostball / adjusted ghostball, fractional aiming, SAM, Joe Tucker's system (all of which, if you focus on it and work hard on it work very well)
On the other far end of the spectrum is:
"One aim for every single shot in pool: center to edge" (works very well)
I know players in each section who play absolute lights-out, run-out-from-everywhere, shoot until they get bored and miss pool.
The bottom line is, there's no system for stroking straight under pressure to deliver the CB to exactly where you want it, when you need to do it. Therefore, as the eternal cynic, I think: Since only a small % of pool players can actually execute well under pressure, does it matter which end of the spectrum you study?
I remember standing behind Earl at a US Open years ago - watching his cue go back and forth. Frankly, it looked like it was on a track....absolutely laser straight. Every stroke was identical.
I remember following Jack Nicklaus around Congressional a few years back. At that time, in his late 50's/early 60's, even as an old fart.... standing behind Jack watching him hit balls.... every single swing.... laser, laser straight. Not a wobble, not an inch out of his swing plane. It looked like you were watching a robot.
Let me apply this to my point:
If all of us could execute like this.... being able to deliver the cue tip through the center of the CB (not the center-face, but the geometric center of the ball) straight every time, stroke after stroke.... it wouldn't matter if we had a system or not, we would all figure out how to make every shot on the table before too long.
Since hardly anyone can do that all the time on shots of difficulty or pressure, how can anyone say their system is better - when they can't make a spot-to-spot shot for $1000 (and you have to shoot 20 shots)?
Not saying there aren't people who wouldn't take the bet, but they're also not arguing about aiming systems because they can execute.
Respect back at ya, but there's nothing intuitive about my response and, more importantly, it's right. If your system is limited to 6 (or any small number of) precise CB/OB alignments, then most shots will fall somewhere between them, even after taking into account the ability to cheat all the pockets. Been there; done that to death.
Actual attempts are not a reliable way to test systems like this - we too easily fool ourselves about how we actually aim. You have to set up controlled tests or rely on the geometry (which is convincing).
pj
chgo
Last edited:
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.av84fun said:
OK, here is the long awaited (by no one) aiming system that I have alluded to in other threads.
NOTES:
1. Everything posted here presumes a center ball hit on the CB. Non-center ball hits will, of course, influence the OB path in ways that you must learn and adjust for on your own.
2. But in my opinion, many players will benefit from a BASELINE aiming system.
3. All aiming systems that work, do so because they HAVE to work and they HAVE to work because they are based on geometry that is either accurate or not...period.
4. This system's basic purpose is to make the act of aiming as precise and as easy to accomplish as possible. For example, some other systems, like the fractional ball method, requires using a point on the CB that is not top dead center. That introduces vision issues that are absent in, say, a rifle sight which is the most precise (non electronic) aiming device known to man..,.,after all, people's lives depend on that sighting method.
5. Inevitably, all systems have exceptions. So does this one so please review the Exceptions section before reaching your final conclusions.
6. For convenience, ALL shots described will relate to shots into the lower RIGHT corner pocket. Just reverse everything for left cuts.
7. As you will see, this system is based, in part, on where the Line of Centers of the CB and OB points. That will be referred to as the LOC. You will also see that due to the LOC orientation of this system, you don't even have to LOOK at the target pocket.
8. Please know that I am not selling anything here. Nor am I an instructor looking for students. I am merely trying to share a system that has made a SIGNIFICANT improvement in my percentage of pocketing the more difficult shots. I have no interest in becoming a legend in the pool community. Just trying to share knowledge for the sake of sharing it so...be gentle! (-:
OK, here we go.
A. The heart of this system is to imagine that your cue stick has a laser beam emanating from the center of the cue tip. Regardless of WHAT aiming system you might use, it is self-evident that the laser sight must point to some exact spot on the OB. I actually imagine that a red laser beam is pointing to the exact spot I want it to point at. And as you can imagine, doing so provides you with extreme accuracy in pointing the cue to an exact spot...the question then being what spot?
B. The correct spot can be determined by visualizing a LOC and determining where it points in relation to the diamonds that lie to either the left or right of the target pocket. (remember, this description refers only to cuts into the lower right pocket)
C. There are only 5 OB TARGET SPOTS you need to know and the are...(later referred to as TSs) (plus 1 "specialty" target mentioned later)
1. 1/2 tip to the left of center.
2. 1 tip to the left
3. left edge of tip to left edge of CB
4. tip half on the OB and half off. Stated another way the pinpoint CENTER of the tip points to the left edge of the OB and
5. Right edge of tip points to left edge of CB.
As I am sure you can imagine from the above description, those aiming spots are EXTREMELY easy to sight...and that sighting is accomplished in "rifle" style without having to imagine a ghost ball or trying to aim the edge of the cue ball (which is OFFSET) to some spot on the OB.
USE OF DIAMONDS
Since the diamonds are at a fixed geometric point relative to the pockets then, by definition, they can be used just as reliably to determine how to aim the OB to the center of the pocket as the pockets themselves...and I think more reliably. I say more reliably since if you use the pocket itself as the prime factor in aiming, you necessarily must guess at the cut angle...and some are better guessers on that subject than others.
To the contrary, with the LOC of the CB/OB pointing at a given spot on the rail near the pocket, then there MUST be an exact spot on the OB to aim the "laser beam" and as noted above once you have established where the LOC points, you don't even have to look at the pocket. You WILL because your mind will force you to but I have tested this method in the presence of a World Champion who held a dish towel over the entire corner of the table whereupon I would approach the table without ever casting my vision toward the pocket, got down over the shot and drilled it dead center.
Note, this is not voodoo. I say again that (absent the various contact forces) making shots on a pool table is merely geometry and the angle that an OB must depart from its LOC with the CB in order to go into the dead center of the pocket is pure geometry.
The BIG QUESTION is where to aim the laser beam when the LOC points to various points on the cushion and here it is. (Refer to the above Target Spot numbers when I use, "TS 1" for example.
1. When the LOC is 1 ball or less away from the opening of the target pocket i.e. a very slight cut, use TP1.
2. When the LOC points anywhere else between the pocket opening and the first diamond to the left, use TP2.
3. When the LOC points directly at the 1st diamond to the left, use TP3 (allow a half ball variation from pointing EXACTLY at the diamond).
4. When the LOC points between the 1st and 2nd diamonds, use TP4.
5. When the LOC points directly at or almost anywhere to the left of the middle diamond, use TP5.
There you have it. I suggest that if you try out this system, start with easy shots so the dynamics of the system will be most obvious and any stroke errors would be minimuzed.
Start with the OB on the spot and the CB a foot away and just move the CB so as to achieve the above-mentioned LOCs
EXCEPTIONS
Not to be redundant but cueing issues (english, squirt etc. will throw this system and every other system off)
1. Moving pocket.
As you all know, there is a difference between the "actual pocket" (the one built into the table) and the "available pocket" (that portion of the pocket opening left after one or the other pocket points invades the actual pocket as you move left or right from a line perpendicular to a line drawn between the two points. In other words, if you stand behind a side pocket and look at the opposite corner pocket, the actual pocket and the available pocket are exactly the same. But if you move to the left, you will see that the left point blocks the left side of the actual pocket (and vice versa) so aiming at the center of the actual pocket will result in a miss due to contact with the point.
If you move to the center of the head rail and look at the lower left corner pocket, you will see that the left point totally blocks the back center of the actual pocket. So, for that position, any system that directs the OB to the back center of the pocket must fail.
This problem will occur most often when the OB lies closer to the side rail. But to adjust, when you are standing on the LOC of a particular shot and you SEE that the pocket point is blocking the back center of the pocket, then simply adjust ONE TP thinner. This adjustment is purely systematic and addresses the issue that Bob Jewett raised priot to this post. He said that any system that directs the OB to the center of the actual pocket "is broken" and of course, he is correct. Therefore, the "1 TS thinner" rules addresses that issue quite systematically...and accurately.
2. Side pockets. This is more of an addition than an exception but the system works equally well on side pocket shots as corner pocket shots because geometry doesn't care where the pocket is. BUT as we all know...unlike corner pockets where there is an available pocket regardless of the approach angle of the OB, on side pocket shots, the available pocket disappears entirely on an angle from about 1 short rail diamond from the corner pockets. Obviously, if there is no available pocket, then no aiming system can work. In addition, as well all know the side pocket points have different dynamics than the corner pocket points and you have to take those differences into account.
3. When the OB is close to a rail...say a ball width or two from the foot or head rails, the invasion of the greatest error would be to undercut the shot and risk leaving the OB in or near the jaws. The wise advice is to "miss it to the pro side" which means to over cut if anything hoping to leave the OB on the short rail. But I don't like the concept of "missing" the shot to either side. I'd rather make it and therefore, I use the following modification.
If the LOC is such that it is possible to over-cut the shot, then use TP5. You will either make it or over cut slightly.
If the LOC is such that it would be virtually impossible to over cut the shot use TP5 BUT ADJUST IT JUST SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT and by that I mean the slightest variation that you can detect with the human eye. In other words JUST A TINY BIT.
The beauty of this particular shot is that even at full table length separation between the CB and OB, the "rifle sight" or "laser beam" method of aiming will allow you...after considerable practice to get used to the fear of missing the OB entirely which causes most such shots to be hit too thick, you will find yourself pocketing a HUGE percentage of shots where the CB is, say 6 inches off the center of the head rail and the OB is, say, a half ball width off the foot rail at the first diamond from the corner pocket.
That's it. To sum up, I knew that there were aiming systems that work because they HAD to work geometrically but there were certain variables that caused actually achieving the correct aim somewhat problematic. It then occurred to me that WHATEVER the system, the cue tip points to one exact spot and being an accomplished skeet shooter, it occurred to me that a cue stick is no different that a rifle barrel. Therefore, since there is NO better way to aim a gun barrel other than to use it (and its mechanical sight) then there could be no more precise way to aim a cue stick other than to use it (and its cue tip) to acquire your target. I also note that the only way to improve upon aiming the barrel by sight is to install A LASER SIGHT so that the laser beam eliminates all human aiming error.
We can't have a laser beam on our playing cues but we certainly can imagine it and I suggest that there is nothing more easily imagined than a straight line.
If you decide to take a whack at this system, do start with easy shots as "proof of concept" and be mindful that no system, however perfect, can survive mechanical errors on the part of the shooter.
Finally, I have made no attempt to systematize cueing variables because they are nearly infinite and therefore cannot be reduced to a system...at least not by me.
PS: I wish I knew how to create diagrams because this system would be much easier to visualize but sadly, I am lurking somewhere back in the 20th century and couldn't create a diagram to save my worthless ass!
(-:
NOTES:
1. Everything posted here presumes a center ball hit on the CB. Non-center ball hits will, of course, influence the OB path in ways that you must learn and adjust for on your own.
2. But in my opinion, many players will benefit from a BASELINE aiming system.
3. All aiming systems that work, do so because they HAVE to work and they HAVE to work because they are based on geometry that is either accurate or not...period.
4. This system's basic purpose is to make the act of aiming as precise and as easy to accomplish as possible. For example, some other systems, like the fractional ball method, requires using a point on the CB that is not top dead center. That introduces vision issues that are absent in, say, a rifle sight which is the most precise (non electronic) aiming device known to man..,.,after all, people's lives depend on that sighting method.
5. Inevitably, all systems have exceptions. So does this one so please review the Exceptions section before reaching your final conclusions.
6. For convenience, ALL shots described will relate to shots into the lower RIGHT corner pocket. Just reverse everything for left cuts.
7. As you will see, this system is based, in part, on where the Line of Centers of the CB and OB points. That will be referred to as the LOC. You will also see that due to the LOC orientation of this system, you don't even have to LOOK at the target pocket.
8. Please know that I am not selling anything here. Nor am I an instructor looking for students. I am merely trying to share a system that has made a SIGNIFICANT improvement in my percentage of pocketing the more difficult shots. I have no interest in becoming a legend in the pool community. Just trying to share knowledge for the sake of sharing it so...be gentle! (-:
OK, here we go.
A. The heart of this system is to imagine that your cue stick has a laser beam emanating from the center of the cue tip. Regardless of WHAT aiming system you might use, it is self-evident that the laser sight must point to some exact spot on the OB. I actually imagine that a red laser beam is pointing to the exact spot I want it to point at. And as you can imagine, doing so provides you with extreme accuracy in pointing the cue to an exact spot...the question then being what spot?
B. The correct spot can be determined by visualizing a LOC and determining where it points in relation to the diamonds that lie to either the left or right of the target pocket. (remember, this description refers only to cuts into the lower right pocket)
C. There are only 5 OB TARGET SPOTS you need to know and the are...(later referred to as TSs) (plus 1 "specialty" target mentioned later)
1. 1/2 tip to the left of center.
2. 1 tip to the left
3. left edge of tip to left edge of CB
4. tip half on the OB and half off. Stated another way the pinpoint CENTER of the tip points to the left edge of the OB and
5. Right edge of tip points to left edge of CB.
As I am sure you can imagine from the above description, those aiming spots are EXTREMELY easy to sight...and that sighting is accomplished in "rifle" style without having to imagine a ghost ball or trying to aim the edge of the cue ball (which is OFFSET) to some spot on the OB.
USE OF DIAMONDS
Since the diamonds are at a fixed geometric point relative to the pockets then, by definition, they can be used just as reliably to determine how to aim the OB to the center of the pocket as the pockets themselves...and I think more reliably. I say more reliably since if you use the pocket itself as the prime factor in aiming, you necessarily must guess at the cut angle...and some are better guessers on that subject than others.
To the contrary, with the LOC of the CB/OB pointing at a given spot on the rail near the pocket, then there MUST be an exact spot on the OB to aim the "laser beam" and as noted above once you have established where the LOC points, you don't even have to look at the pocket. You WILL because your mind will force you to but I have tested this method in the presence of a World Champion who held a dish towel over the entire corner of the table whereupon I would approach the table without ever casting my vision toward the pocket, got down over the shot and drilled it dead center.
Note, this is not voodoo. I say again that (absent the various contact forces) making shots on a pool table is merely geometry and the angle that an OB must depart from its LOC with the CB in order to go into the dead center of the pocket is pure geometry.
The BIG QUESTION is where to aim the laser beam when the LOC points to various points on the cushion and here it is. (Refer to the above Target Spot numbers when I use, "TS 1" for example.
1. When the LOC is 1 ball or less away from the opening of the target pocket i.e. a very slight cut, use TP1.
2. When the LOC points anywhere else between the pocket opening and the first diamond to the left, use TP2.
3. When the LOC points directly at the 1st diamond to the left, use TP3 (allow a half ball variation from pointing EXACTLY at the diamond).
4. When the LOC points between the 1st and 2nd diamonds, use TP4.
5. When the LOC points directly at or almost anywhere to the left of the middle diamond, use TP5.
There you have it. I suggest that if you try out this system, start with easy shots so the dynamics of the system will be most obvious and any stroke errors would be minimuzed.
Start with the OB on the spot and the CB a foot away and just move the CB so as to achieve the above-mentioned LOCs
EXCEPTIONS
Not to be redundant but cueing issues (english, squirt etc. will throw this system and every other system off)
1. Moving pocket.
As you all know, there is a difference between the "actual pocket" (the one built into the table) and the "available pocket" (that portion of the pocket opening left after one or the other pocket points invades the actual pocket as you move left or right from a line perpendicular to a line drawn between the two points. In other words, if you stand behind a side pocket and look at the opposite corner pocket, the actual pocket and the available pocket are exactly the same. But if you move to the left, you will see that the left point blocks the left side of the actual pocket (and vice versa) so aiming at the center of the actual pocket will result in a miss due to contact with the point.
If you move to the center of the head rail and look at the lower left corner pocket, you will see that the left point totally blocks the back center of the actual pocket. So, for that position, any system that directs the OB to the back center of the pocket must fail.
This problem will occur most often when the OB lies closer to the side rail. But to adjust, when you are standing on the LOC of a particular shot and you SEE that the pocket point is blocking the back center of the pocket, then simply adjust ONE TP thinner. This adjustment is purely systematic and addresses the issue that Bob Jewett raised priot to this post. He said that any system that directs the OB to the center of the actual pocket "is broken" and of course, he is correct. Therefore, the "1 TS thinner" rules addresses that issue quite systematically...and accurately.
2. Side pockets. This is more of an addition than an exception but the system works equally well on side pocket shots as corner pocket shots because geometry doesn't care where the pocket is. BUT as we all know...unlike corner pockets where there is an available pocket regardless of the approach angle of the OB, on side pocket shots, the available pocket disappears entirely on an angle from about 1 short rail diamond from the corner pockets. Obviously, if there is no available pocket, then no aiming system can work. In addition, as well all know the side pocket points have different dynamics than the corner pocket points and you have to take those differences into account.
3. When the OB is close to a rail...say a ball width or two from the foot or head rails, the invasion of the greatest error would be to undercut the shot and risk leaving the OB in or near the jaws. The wise advice is to "miss it to the pro side" which means to over cut if anything hoping to leave the OB on the short rail. But I don't like the concept of "missing" the shot to either side. I'd rather make it and therefore, I use the following modification.
If the LOC is such that it is possible to over-cut the shot, then use TP5. You will either make it or over cut slightly.
If the LOC is such that it would be virtually impossible to over cut the shot use TP5 BUT ADJUST IT JUST SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT and by that I mean the slightest variation that you can detect with the human eye. In other words JUST A TINY BIT.
The beauty of this particular shot is that even at full table length separation between the CB and OB, the "rifle sight" or "laser beam" method of aiming will allow you...after considerable practice to get used to the fear of missing the OB entirely which causes most such shots to be hit too thick, you will find yourself pocketing a HUGE percentage of shots where the CB is, say 6 inches off the center of the head rail and the OB is, say, a half ball width off the foot rail at the first diamond from the corner pocket.
That's it. To sum up, I knew that there were aiming systems that work because they HAD to work geometrically but there were certain variables that caused actually achieving the correct aim somewhat problematic. It then occurred to me that WHATEVER the system, the cue tip points to one exact spot and being an accomplished skeet shooter, it occurred to me that a cue stick is no different that a rifle barrel. Therefore, since there is NO better way to aim a gun barrel other than to use it (and its mechanical sight) then there could be no more precise way to aim a cue stick other than to use it (and its cue tip) to acquire your target. I also note that the only way to improve upon aiming the barrel by sight is to install A LASER SIGHT so that the laser beam eliminates all human aiming error.
We can't have a laser beam on our playing cues but we certainly can imagine it and I suggest that there is nothing more easily imagined than a straight line.
If you decide to take a whack at this system, do start with easy shots as "proof of concept" and be mindful that no system, however perfect, can survive mechanical errors on the part of the shooter.
Finally, I have made no attempt to systematize cueing variables because they are nearly infinite and therefore cannot be reduced to a system...at least not by me.
PS: I wish I knew how to create diagrams because this system would be much easier to visualize but sadly, I am lurking somewhere back in the 20th century and couldn't create a diagram to save my worthless ass!
(-:
Patrick Johnson said:
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.
pj, what is the width... from one extreme to another...of the contact points on the OB which, if struck, will result in pocketing the ball from a distance of on inch in from of a corner pocket. The answer, of course, is 2.25 inches because if you strike ANY portion of the OB it goes in.
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.
So your notion that 6 is not enough points of aim is facially untrue for the VAST majority of shots actually faced in a pool match.
However, 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.
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!
Your thesis suggests, for example, that the "placebo effect" does not exist when all of medical sciene would disagree with you.
If memory serves...and forgive me if I am wrong...you are an advocate of the ghost ball system. But taking your own statement above at face value, that system too should be ignored since while you THINK you are directing the CB to where the ghost ball sits, you may not be "fooling yourself" as you thesis holds.
You state that actual attempts aren;t reliable when, in fact, they are the ONLY reliable method because it will either work FOR YOU or it won't.
All the geometry in the world won't cause a system to work if...as you point out...the shooter isn't achieving the geometry due to subconscious inputs.
Admittedly, I would vastly prefer to attempt a system that IS well founded in geometry and due to the error permitted by pocket width there is simply no question that my system works geometrically for the VAST majority of shots.
Regards,
Jim
pdcue said:
First, your intimation that anything in my post remotely suggests that you are a moron is obviously incorrect by virtue of the words I wrote...unless you just conclude that anyone who does not agree with you is suggesting you are a moron.
That comment was quite unfortunate IMHO.
You have stated that my system is geometrically impossible. Such a statement requires the conclusion that you have done the math. So you show ME the math and then we'll talk.
Regards,
Jim