Aiming systems

[av84fun]

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

Of course...you are totally correct. My bad entirely!!! Eating crow after so much turkey is especially bad!

What I MEANT to say was just the opposite of what I did say. What I meant is that the SAME "aiming method" WILL cause a hit on the exact same point of contact in spite of the fact that the CB has moved a significant distance.

The OVERRIDING point that I so badly buthered in my post to you was that my system has nothing to do with aiming at contact points and that, therefore, the number of aiming points that must be contacted to pocket all shots is irrelevant to my system.

Stated another way...by using one of the 6 AIMING METHODS, according to the diamond-related rules, will result in the OB striking the correct contact point on the OB.

Sorry for having opened mouth and inserted foot. I've been getting quite a few comments and clearly didn't give sufficient time to considering your last one.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

I have attempted to edit out most of the erroneous remarks that Mr. Johnson so correctly pointed out. But I can't edit posts of others that quoted mine so those errors are going to remain of record.

Let me just use this post to respond to any others who might read my quoted remarks and inquire about them.

If you will study my system and put it to the test, you will find an interesting phenomenon is present.

That being that you can use 1 of 6 "aiming methods" as I have defined them (actually, the 6th is a highly specialized one so for the most part, there are only 5) to direct the CB to the contact point that will send the OB to the center of the actual pocket..."center" being defined as the line running perpendicular to a line drawn between the pocket points that points to the back dead center of the physical pocket.

In addition, for reasons explained in the system a shot directed to that point must miss in some cases due to the fact that the pocket points will interfere with that line and must be adjusted for. The system takes that into account.

MOST importantly, the system has nothing to do with aiming at any particular contact point on the OB.

If you are at all interested, please refer to the example I posted in a response to Patrick Johnson regarding pocketing an OB from the head spot.

If you do that, the essence of the sytem will be made clear at which point you might become interested in studying the system further.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What I MEANT to say was just the opposite of what I did say. What I meant is that the SAME "aiming method" WILL cause a hit on the exact same point of contact in spite of the fact that the CB has moved a significant distance.

I'm so glad we sorted that out that I'm not going to re-read that last part.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

I'm so glad we sorted that out that I'm not going to re-read that last part.

pj
chgo

Of course not. That would require you to admit that YOU were in error when you suggested that my system couldn't work because aiming as just 6 contact points could not posslbly work for many shots, when in fact, my system has nothing to do with aiming at contact points.

But, oh well.

(-:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...YOU were in error when you suggested that my system couldn't work because aiming as just 6 contact points could not posslbly work for many shots, when in fact, my system has nothing to do with aiming at contact points.

Whether you aim at them or not, they're there and you hit them, and there's one for each different way you have of lining up a shot, whether it's using the stick and balls or ball fractions or numbered points or what-have-you. Each different alignment is a different cut angle and therefore a different OB contact point.

Your system has 5 ways of lining up shots so it has 5 cut angles and 5 contact points. It's an inescapable geometric fact that with only 5 cut angles you'll miss 1/2 the balls that are 18 inches from pockets (generous pockets), 2/3 of those that are 27 inches away and 3/4 of those that are 36 inches away.

If you're not missing that many shots, then you're not sticking to the 5 system angles.

pj
chgo

 

[Jaden]

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

The only way that this would work is if you're using half a ball aimed not at the OB but at a spot half a ball length behind the OB in line with the pocket. There's absolutely no way that you can be stroking true and aim half a ball width straight at the OB from different angles and make the OB center pocket, it is geometrically impossible.

The only other possibility is that you're mispeaking yourself or I'm not following what your doing.

Try video taping what you're doing so that we can see and possibly figure out what you're talking about.

 

[av84fun]

Whether you aim at them or not, they're there and you hit them, and there's one for each different way you have of lining up a shot, whether it's using the stick and balls or ball fractions or numbered points or what-have-you. Each different alignment is a different cut angle and therefore a different OB contact point.

Your system has 5 ways of lining up shots so it has 5 cut angles and 5 contact points. It's an inescapable geometric fact that with only 5 cut angles you'll miss 1/2 the balls that are 18 inches from pockets (generous pockets), 2/3 of those that are 27 inches away and 3/4 of those that are 36 inches away.

If you're not missing that many shots, then you're not sticking to the 5 system angles.

pj
chgo

Thanks for letting get back into the lead on the "you're dead wrong" score!
(-:

If you would stop with the slide rule stuff...which just compounds your earlier error in refuting my statement that raw geometry does not always work (as when various degrees of force are applied to the "angle in=angle out" banking theory) and just set up the spot shot I asked you to test, you would know for a FACT that your assumptions are utterly wrong.

As I am sure you know, the head spot is just under 3 feet from the ledge of a foot rail corner pocket on a 9' table...which is A LOT more than the 18 inch distance from which you suggest my system would miss 50% of the time.

Your problem is that the 4 shots in the example will go 100% of the time with ZERO subconscious variations.

Just this evening, I set up the shot...heavily chalked my tip to well mark the CB and stroked such that the chalk smudge appeared exactly in the center of my red triangle cue ball. So there was virtually zero cueing distortion.

Furthermore, I placed a ring binder reinforcer directly on the line my cue stick had to travel to ensure that I was stroking where I was aiming.

Then I shot the four recommended shots 5 tines each...moving the white ring to the appropriate spot for each of the 4 shots in the series. On ALL 40 shots, the chalk mark was dead on and the cue tip ended up EXACTLY over the white binder reinforcer.....EVERY TIME.

If there is a more scientific way to control the testing of those shots I would be delighted to hear it.

Since you don't seem inclined to test it yourself, I would be happy to meet you anywhere in the contenental U.S. and test those shots in the presence of a BCA Master Instructor as judge that the system was being shot as described....for $1,000 per 5 shot attempts at the 4 shots.

All five of each angle must go or I lose a bag. Total potential win/loss = 5 bags....CASH posted in advance.

Will you be at DCC or would you designate a proxy to represent you. Scottie would be a fine judge...and I hardly know him. He would probably recognize my face but not my name.

Or Bob Jewett would be totally acceptable as well...even better possibly...for you...because I have the sense that Bob has a healthy degree of skepticism about this system. But I would trust him implicitly to render a fair and scientifically based judgment.

If DCC is the venue, since I am going anyway, I'll give you the option of quitting after the second series.

Bet?
(-:

 

[av84fun]

Jaden wrote..."The only other possibility is that you're mispeaking yourself or I'm not following what your doing."

Jaden...the example is described exactly as it should have been. Did you set it up and try it????

I've spent a LOT of time posting and discussing this method...and for no personal gain of any kind (unless Mr. Johnson takes me up on my wager).

I'm not selling anything and have just done all this to try to be helpful.

Won't you AT LEAST do this...Set up the example and don't even bother to shoot the 4 shots. Just aim as you would normally...and then tell me where the tip points in relation to the right edge of the OB.

You will SEE that using your own aiming technique, the tip will be half on and half off the right edge of the OB FOR ALL FOUR SHOTS. I am not a scientist or mathematician so I don't pretend to be able to explain why this method works. But I KNOW it works and am only a several weeks away from being able to DEMONSTRATE that it works in the AZ room at DCC...after which those who have denied the viability of the system without even trying it will get an earful (eyeful more appropriately) from the AZers who will see that it works and will hopefully post their findings here.

Regards,
Jim

PS: To Bob Jewett....HELP!!!! I have already told you that I will add $500 for the first 100 straight in your 14.1 challenge at DCC if certain pros have time to participate. Now let me do this. I will add $500 REGARDLESS of who enters for the first 100 straight if you will just set up the spot shot example and DON'T EVEN SHOT THE 4 SHOTS! Just aim for the center of the pocket using whatever technique you use and then just report back where the tip of your cue points in relation to the right edge of the OB.

If you will do that 3 minute task you will SEE that the tip will be half on and half off the right edge for all 4 shots and I am sure will be able to explain WHY!! When you are thus motivated you might want to do at least the following (but the $500 is good just for doing what I ask above)

1. With an OB on the head spot place the CB between the side pockets such that you create a LOC pointing between the left corner and the 1st diamond to the right of the pocket. When you aim that shot, you will SEE that the tip points ONE ball right of center. Then move the CB to vary where the LOC points...but within the above-mentioned space and aim again. And you will SEE that the tip STILL points ONE ball right of center.
2. Now set the LOC so that it points directly to the 1st diamond...aim as you ordinarily do and you will SEE that the right edge of the tip points to the right edge of the OB. Move the CB as per the above and the right edge/right edge aiming method will stay the same.

Thus emboldened, you might be encouraged to conclude that I may just be on to something fairly novel here and decide to test out the entire system....AND EXPLAIN WHY IT WORKS!

THANKS IN ADVANCE...and since we don't know each other, if you will do the above but are skeptical of my making good on the $500 add-on to your tournament, just PM me with your address and I'll send you a check to cash and hold funds until DCC. Or just ask Thorsten or Tony Robles about Dr. Louis's friend Jim from Nashville or Alli or Gerda or Kim Shaw or Jean or Scott Lee
(-:

 

[av84fun]

Hey, I have an idea! Let's debate whether any given aiming system would work better or worse with a stiff, flexible or low-squirt shaft...and with Moori, LePro, Everest or Sniper tips...with a slightly elevated or as level as possible cue and whether Alli or Jean Balukas would execute the systems best.

And then...just for a change of pace, we can debate politics, religion, the Iraq War...and whether Martha Stewart is or is not a royal *****!!!

FUN!!!!!
(-:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Since you don't seem inclined to test it yourself, I would be happy to meet you anywhere in the contenental U.S. and test those shots in the presence of a BCA Master Instructor as judge that the system was being shot as described....for $1,000 per 5 shot attempts at the 4 shots.

All five of each angle must go or I lose a bag. Total potential win/loss = 5 bags....CASH posted in advance.

Here's a diagram of the test shot you propose:

CueTable Help

To simplify things I just compared the first and last cue ball positions you described - CB A is in the first position and CB B is in the last position. I drew lines to show each of them making a half-ball hit on the 1 ball. Notice that the two lines are at distinctly different angles - I'm guessing they're about 20 degrees apart.

If the CBs (A & B) are each aimed at the 1 ball for 1/2-ball hits, then the OB will take two different paths when hit by these two different CBs, and the two OB paths will be 20 degrees apart too. So if the first one splits the pocket, the second will miss by 20 degrees.

This is not debatable; it's a basic geometric fact. Think of the two CBs each hitting the 1 ball straight on ("full ball hits") - I assume you'll agree that the 1 ball will travel in two different directions then. That's the same situation as when the two CBs each hit the 1 ball with a "half ball hit".

Think about this some more before making foolish bets that somebody less principled than me might be tempted to accept.

pj
chgo

 

[Curdog]

I'm starting to get a bit confused. Does this diagram infer that the contact point is the same for A & B?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm starting to get a bit confused. Does this diagram infer that the contact point is the same for A & B?

No, that's what av84fun claims. This diagram tries to show him why he's wrong, but he hasn't understood that yet and I don't know if he ever will.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

Just for clarity for those wise enough to actually shoot the shots.

1. My example was a cut to the left not the right...so my aiming guides need to be reversed for your diagram and
2. The ball at center table is placed there only for the purpose of setting up the first ball in the shot series to be place 1 ball width from the center ball. But the center ball should be removed to leave 4 shots not 5.
3. The 4 balls should not be frozen...just a hair apart so as not to impede the shot.

You have ducked the bet under the guise of be so noble as to not want to take my money. Nice try. Now let me turn your nobility back at you. The wager proceeds will be donated to the charity of the winner's choice.

It is amusing that you sit there and state in no uncertain terms that FACT is not FACT. I will enjoy reading your retraction when it is credibly demonstrated that you are wrong.


And finally...just out of curiosity, do you actually play pool? Just wondering why you won't open your mind for the TWO MINUTES it would take to actually shoot the shots.

Although, I must say that you are so adamant in your incorrect views on this system that your conscious mind might well not allow you to see what other less biased eyes will see.

I anxiously await your noble agreement to allow me to donate $5,000.00 to your favorite charity...which MUST happen, since my aiming method as described in the spot shot example cannot possibly work...RIGHT??

And by the way, I am ordering a CueSight laser cue to make the test utterly irrefutable. In addition, we would mutually agree on a neutral, top rated player to actually shoot the shots. The judge's only role would be to assure that the shooter does not trick up his/her stroke. Any stroke determined by the judge not to have tracked the line of aim or that was not a centerball hit will be disallowed and must be shot again.

Actually, what would be PERFECT would be to place a glass ball in the ghost ball position so that you could SEE THROUGH it and KNOW where the tip is pointing so you wouldn't have to even shoot the shots to prove that the method works. Off to Pier One to find my balls!! (-:

So there you are...totally scientific...totally noble. It is now time for you to step up. And BTW, I am not trying to high roll you. If $1,000 per shot series is too much, any wager, including a gentleman's bet that would merely require the loser to make an apologetic post on this forum can be the stake AFAIAC.

C'mon Patrick...LET'S ROLL

 

[av84fun]

I'm starting to get a bit confused. Does this diagram infer that the contact point is the same for A & B?

Thanks for your interest. Forget about the diagram and just set the shot up. As noted elsewhere, my example posted here was for a cut to the left. doesn't matter which way you cut...just reverse the instructions.

For a cut to the right the tip would be half on and half off the the LEFT edge of the OB.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

No, that's what av84fun claims. This diagram tries to show him why he's wrong, but he hasn't understood that yet and I don't know if he ever will.

pj
chgo

Well, we can agree on something anyway...that I will NEVER "understand" that the method doesn't work...simply because it FLAT OUT...PLAIN AND SIMPLE...DYED IN THE WOOL...NO KIDDING...SLAM DUNK...TAKE IT TO THE BANK...BOOK IT...DOES WORK and your adamant and UNTESTED comments to the contrary will be quite a source of embarrassment to you...SOON.

BET ME!!!

(-:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...do you actually play pool? Just wondering why you won't open your mind for the TWO MINUTES it would take to actually shoot the shots.

If I told you to shoot shots A and B straight into the 1 ball (full ball hits) to see if the 1 ball would hit the same target both times, would you bother to shoot it? Hey, maybe the laws of physics changed while we were sleeping last night! Or would you tell me I'm nuts?

I have a pool table 10 feet from my computer, but I won't bother to shoot these shots of yours, because the results are as certain as shooting the straight-on shots I describe above.

If you keep trying to be insulting, I'm going to accept your bet.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Well, we can agree on something anyway...that I will NEVER "understand" that the method doesn't work...simply because it FLAT OUT...PLAIN AND SIMPLE...DYED IN THE WOOL...NO KIDDING...SLAM DUNK...TAKE IT TO THE BANK...BOOK IT...DOES WORK and your adamant and UNTESTED comments to the contrary will be quite a source of embarrassment to you...SOON.

BET ME!!!

CueTable Help

Maybe pictures will help you. Look at the two pages of this diagram. Click back and forth a few times to see how the cue ball hits the object ball at different contact points (and the object ball goes to two different places on the end rail).

Let me know if you still want to bet. I'm thinking about flying you to Chicago for this. If I left it up to any of the sharks that live here (like 1 Pocket Ghost), you'd be on a plane already.

By the way, if you trust Bob Jewett enough to have him judge the bet, why not ask him how he thinks you'll do with it? I strongly recommend getting some second opinions.

pj
chgo

 

[CaptainJR]

I haven't participated in one of these aiming threads in a long time. I'm over due. It has been proven many times on this forum that these edge of the ball type systems just don't work but once more won't hurt.

Let's assume that we are playing on a triple shimmed 9' table. Here are six shots that you have to make in the lower left corner pocket. If you are using any of these edge of the ball type systems and it happens to fit one of these shots, the other five are going to miss. No margin for error. Thus you shouldn't waste your time with this system. If your serious enough about the game to want to learn and use a system, why not use one that applies to all shots.


http://CueTable.com/P/?@2JQKc2KQSl2LQSt2MQTD2NQTN2OQTX2PQeq@

 

[Jal]

Well, we can agree on something anyway...that I will NEVER "understand" that the method doesn't work...simply because it FLAT OUT...PLAIN AND SIMPLE...DYED IN THE WOOL...NO KIDDING...SLAM DUNK...TAKE IT TO THE BANK...BOOK IT...DOES WORK and your adamant and UNTESTED comments to the contrary will be quite a source of embarrassment to you...SOON.

BET ME!!!

(-:

Av84fun, you're about to lose $5000. You should be grateful Patrick declined your first offer, but you persist despite him very generously, and very straightforwardly, demonstrating the flaws in your system. If $5000 doesn't mean much to you, then have at it, but you're in for a rude and expensive awakening.

Don't say that people haven't tried to warn you, including Mr. Johnson himself. Bravo to him.

Jim

 

[av84fun]

If I told you to shoot shots A and B straight into the 1 ball (full ball hits) to see if the 1 ball would hit the same target both times, would you bother to shoot it? Hey, maybe the laws of physics changed while we were sleeping last night! Or would you tell me I'm nuts?

I have a pool table 10 feet from my computer, but I won't bother to shoot these shots of yours, because the results are as certain as shooting the straight-on shots I describe above.

If you keep trying to be insulting, I'm going to accept your bet.

pj
chgo

That is just an utterly stone headed attitude. I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing so there is no point in any further dialog between us on this matter.

(-: