CaptainJR..."If you want to convince me all you have to do is tell me how your system changes on each of those shots to pocket the ball. For every shot you show that it does work on there are a thousand other shots that is doesn't work on."
Please don't misunderstand or feel that the following is intended to be even slightly impudent....honest...but I am really not concerned with trying to convince you of anything.
I have posted the system. It works. If you are interested in it then you will investigate it yourself and if you're not, you're not. TOTALLY fine with me either way.
Aiming the center of the tip through the center of the CB and through the very edge of the OB is the same as saying "aim for a half ball hit, dead center cueing". My trig proof is dealing with that particular aiming method. If you want, I can go back through my trig proof and change "half-ball-hit" to just say "TP4"...
FTR, I have tried many of these shots, and missed a whole lot of them.
coopdeville..."edit: I see now that the system uses the cue tip through the left edge of the cue ball?, but I'm not sure as to where that line should
go, or how it would be the same for cut angles that vary by more than 2 degrees, based on the center pocket addendum.
edit #2: I can't make sense of this system, could you please diagram it for us laypeople?"
GREAT! Now you are starting to scope the system. Unfortunatley, no I can't create a diagram that would successfuly depict how a 13mm (or whatever) tip looks like when used to sight at a particular area of an OB.
But you seem like a reasonable guy so please, when you get home or back to the pool hall...just set up the shot...aim as you always do...and SEE that the cue tip will appear to be half on and half off the OB...ON ALL 4 SHOTS.
IF you will just set up the example and LOOK at where the cue tip points, then you would be WELL on your way to understanding the system
I would note here...for the first time...that I sight with my chin not ON the cue but close to it. Others who shoot with their chins much higher off the cue will find it more difficult to tell exactly where the tip is pointing.
But to paraphrase let me just say that the system is BASED ON
1. Using the cue tip as a pointing mechanism which is nothing new in pool or fire arms.
2. I imagine a red laser beam from the exact center of the CB and to what exact spot that laser beam will point. In fact, I am going to bring a laser cue to DCC.
3. It is an irrefutable FACT that when a shot is properly aimed...THE CUE TIP POINTS SOMEWERE!!!!
4. Therefore, for any given shot there IS an exact spot on the CB where the tip should point...and therefore, knowing where that spot is, is not a fundamentally stupid idea. I cannot IMAGINE any disputes so far...right??
OK...what I found...by accident...is that on various cut angles...the VISUAL of the cue tip's point of aim on the CB WAS THE SAME at which point I said "Holy S..t"
Then by ROTE EXPERIMENT over Many hundreds of shots, I found that the SAME "sight picture" was constant within a range of cut angles that I "calibrated" in relation to where the LOC of the balls pointed.
Then, finally, I used the diamonds to locate the boundaries of the range of cut angles with respect to which the same sight picture works.
And hey...when I say that the same sight picture causes the OB to go in the center on different cut angles, gimme a break folks...I'm not suggestinmg the elecron microscope center...just that the shots GO without question. ( I know YOU are not being picky)
Let me readily ADMIT that I have NO EARTHLY IDEA why the SAME "sight picture" works at different cut angles and frankly, I have very little curiosity about why it works. All I care about is making the shot!
Finally, I posted the system that describes what the tip-to-OB sight picture looks like and I don't know how to create a diagram...but it's not hard to visualize.
Here are the necessary sight pictures and they refer to left or right of center depending on the direction of the cut.
1. Dead center i.e. the tip is 50% overlapped on either side of a tiny point at the center of the OB.
2. 1/2 tip i.e. the sight picture would be shifted by 1/2 of the tip width.
3. One tip i.e. the edge of the tip is JUST on the tiny center dot (imaginary) of the OB
4. Edge-to-edge i.e. say, the left edge of the tip is flush with the left edge of the OB on a cut to the right or vice versa
5. Half on edge i.e. half the tip appears to be on the surface of the OB and half off it. In other words a tiny laser beam from the exact center of the tip would point exactly to the edge of the OB.
6. Inside edge of tip to outside edge of OB. For example on a cut to the right, the right edge of the tip would be flush with the left edge of the OB.
7. There is one more "specialty" sight picture which is to adjust from the above AS SLIGHTLY AS YOU HUMANLY CAN and that will produce the thinnest possible cut which is often required on severe angles with the OB very close to a rail so that if you UNDER cut, you go into the rail and miss.
This specialty shot is to be used when over-cutting would be virtually imposible and is MOST useful when you have long severe cuts with the OB VERY near the head or foot rail. On such shots, if you over-cut then you risk leaving the OB in or near the jaws for a sell out...which is why such shots are supposed to be missed "on the pro side" meaning over-cut if anything which sends the OB to the side rail and back out to the end rail and the CB down table.
The added benefity of this specialty version is that if you DO miss it will be by a HAIR and the CB will contact the OB coming back off the rail...move the OB only slightly...and carry the CB back down table.
Sorry...really...but this is the BEST I can do to describe the sight pictures. Maybe you can just draw six 2.25 inch circles on a piece of paper and then draw tip sized circles where I describe the tip to be and then create a digital diagram of that.
I have no clue how to do that.
FINALLY...NO system can be all that easily or automatically exercised by human beings. Three IS some work to be done. Most importantly and especially on the sight pictures where the edge of the OB is involved, there is a little bit of "eye training" involved.
Unlike a raised rifle sight where the shooter's eye is on the same horizontal plane as the sight, even players who have their chins right on the cue still have a downard angle between their eyes and the cue tip so you can't perfectly and automatically achieve the sight positions as you could, for example, by putting a small tube up to your eye and put the edge of that sight picture on some spot on the wall level with your eye.
So you have to "get used" to the sight pictures and in fact, I run through all of them every time I start a practice session.
Gotcha. We don't see through the same eyeballs. But which of the "many" shots did you miss?
There are only 5 "basic" TPs so there aren't a lot of them so I assume that you shot one or more of the TPs and kept missing.
Which ones may I ask? And from what points on the table? What I mean by that is that as the distances expand, human error comes into play and it is not possible to determine whether the shot was missed due to an aiming system or flaws in the shooter's stroke/cueing.
I just can't imagine ANY misses, let alone multiple misses on, say, 3 footers from any TP.
And there is no argument stating that anyone can miss any 3 footer because A) even world champions can and DO and B) that argument misses the point.
If a shot GOES into or very near the center of the pocket from 3 feet using a given aiming technique that same shot will go from 8 feet to.
Finally, did you do the 4 shot, spot shot example? I just can't imagine missing any of those.
Setup a shot you don't think can be made by aiming at the edge of the OB. Something realistic--- nothing center short rail to center short rail. That was what I was trying to say. Obviously, you're not gonna throw balls out and have me cosmo them in for $100. Setup some shots you believe can't be made aiming at the edge of the OB (center-to-edge exactly).
ds
york
I mean this totally friendly-like and with respect. Just something to do. Don't even have to pay the $100. I'm a heck of a guy.
I'm trying to track along with you. Help me out...aim WHAT at the edge of the OB??? What I am getting at is that SOME portion of the CB has to be "aimed" at one or the other edges of the OB ball, or you will miss the OB entirely.
Maybe that's your point...that you will just pocket random shots and then prove geometrically that you aimed SOME portion of the CB at the edge of the OB.
Cool prop bet...you just wouldn't know WHICH portion of the CB you aimed at the OB...because you didn't actuall aim at the edge.
(-:
av84fun - surely you can see by my mathematical proof that a lot of what you say about your system is mathematically incorrect. You've said its based on geometry, but you disregard my proof because you think I'm talking about something else when I say "half-ball hit"? Exactly how is TP4 different from aiming for a half-ball hit? TP4 is exactly how I would define aiming for a half ball hit, as would many posters on here, I believe.
Anyone that holds true the idea that different CB-OB contact points send the OB on different trajectories (all other things being equal) can easily do some basic trig and see that your system is essentially trying to disprove that; that different CB-OB contact points can indeed send the cueball on identical paths (disregarding throw and such).
You can tell us it works in practice all you want, but in reality, there must be aiming errors/adjustments for it work 100%. And after all, it's extremely hard to PROVE that you are indeed aiming where you say you are aiming at the instant the tip strikes the CB. Yet it takes 2 minutes to PROVE geometrically that EVEN IF someone had 100% perfect aim and used your system to the T, that many shots would fail to pocket.
OK, OK, I tried the shots (I can't believe I wasted this time), at least 5 times each with little white donuts and everything. The results are unsurprising - follow the colored lines to see where shots from each of the 4 CB positions went:
Gotcha. We don't see through the same eyeballs. But which of the "many" shots did you miss?
There are only 5 "basic" TPs so there aren't a lot of them so I assume that you shot one or more of the TPs and kept missing.
Which ones may I ask? And from what points on the table? What I mean by that is that as the distances expand, human error comes into play and it is not possible to determine whether the shot was missed due to an aiming system or flaws in the shooter's stroke/cueing.
I just can't imagine ANY misses, let alone multiple misses on, say, 3 footers from any TP.
And there is no argument stating that anyone can miss any 3 footer because A) even world champions can and DO and B) that argument misses the point.
If a shot GOES into or very near the center of the pocket from 3 feet using a given aiming technique that same shot will go from 8 feet to.
Finally, did you do the 4 shot, spot shot example? I just can't imagine missing any of those.
I'll try some more tonight when I get home and post diagrams of what ones I miss.
av84fun said:
What I mean by that is that as the distances expand, human error comes into play and it is not possible to determine whether the shot was missed due to an aiming system or flaws in the shooter's stroke/cueing.
By the same token, isn't it true that if you MAKE a shot using your system, it is essentially impossible to determine whether the shot was made due to the aiming system or due to flaws in the aiming/cueing whilst using the system?
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
(-:
I set it up and tried it and guess what? It might work for the four shots that you specified on a table with five inch pockets. I have pockets cut to the equivalent to a triple shimmed table or about four inches and whil the second shot was pretty close, the others were either too narrow or too wide, so while I can see where you're coming from, you better change systems if you want to get anywhere in this game.
This is reminiscent of a system I thought was the be all end all, and it did end up leading me to the be all end all of aiming systems, but I ended up being wrong about this system even though it would work for some shots.
Here is diagram of the system I THOUGHT was correct for a little while.
In this diagram the purple line represents the CP on the CB and the red line the CP on the OB, and for this shot on most tables it works but if you have too shallow or too wide an angle it won't work at all.
This did lead me to one that does work for all shots though
All I had to do was instead of aiming through the CB to the pocket, aim through the CB on a parallel line to the line through the OB.
That way you have the correct Contact points on both balls and can get the correct aimline. Your system, I'm sorry to say doesn't work for getting the right aimline, although the opposite of your system may be true. I.e. it might, for the majority of shots, appear to be looking at the edge of the ball if you're aimed properly enough to make the shot. You've got to understand that because the cue tip has width you can be at various angles and some portion of the tip will appear to be at the edge of the object ball, but that doesn't get you closer to aiming, what you would really be doing is playing by feel and because of the width of your tip, it looks like you're lining up based on the outer edge of the ball. You can test this by setting up a dead straight shot.
A dead straight shot doesn't have any angle and unless your tip is as wide as the ball, there's no way that it will appear to be at the outer edge of the ball
OK, OK, I tried the shots (I can't believe I wasted this time), at least 5 times each with little white donuts and everything. The results are unsurprising - follow the colored lines to see where shots from each of the 4 CB positions went:
Go get your vision check Patrick. You can't POSSIBLY have missed shot 4 by 3/4 of a rail using the sight picture recommended by the system. That is RIDICULOUS.
You are just desperately trying to save face. In order to drive shot 4 to a point 1 ball to the right of the diamond as your diagram shows, you would have to point the tip about ONE TIP left of center...or a touch more and therefore, the left half of the tip would be NOWHERE NEAR being half OFF the CB to the left.
That kind of blatant misrepresentation of the system is utterly inappropriate.
I'll try some more tonight when I get home and post diagrams of what ones I miss.
By the same token, isn't it true that if you MAKE a shot using your system, it is essentially impossible to determine whether the shot was made due to the aiming system or due to flaws in the aiming/cueing whilst using the system?
Sure. Granted. But the proof of the pudding is that if the shot is set up scientifically (as Jack Koehler often did with specialized devices) then a system will prove up...or not.
However, even if this system is mathematically flawed but due to the dymanics of visual sighting when your eye is not level with the top of the tip it works anyway, then the system works AS PUT TO USE...and possibly that is the exact dynamic at work here. I don't know and don't care because using MY eyes, it works like a dream!
I am a private pilot as you might have guessed from my screen name and my vision corrects to 20/20 and missing the #4 shot by 3/4 of a diamond as Patrick supposedly did is just preposterous.
Sure. Granted. But the proof of the pudding is that if the shot is set up scientifically (as Jack Koehler often did with specialized devices) then a system will prove up...or not.
However, even if this system is mathematically flawed but due to the dymanics of visual sighting when your eye is not level with the top of the tip it works anyway, then the system works AS PUT TO USE...and possibly that is the exact dynamic at work here. I don't know and don't care because using MY eyes, it works like a dream!
I am a private pilot as you might have guessed from my screen name and my vision corrects to 20/20 and missing the #4 shot by 3/4 of a diamond as Patrick supposedly did is just preposterous.
I think maybe you're not following the correct colored line on Patrick's diagram... #4 goes in the pocket (purple line), but it's #1 and #2 that miss the pocket by quite a bit.
I just set up the #1 shot on my table and missed it to almost the exact same point. Like this:
Here's another shot that definitely doesn't go according to the system...and for av84fun's reference, my vision is 20:12, well better than average...
I set up LOC pointing exactly at the first diamond, OB facing a full available pocket. The system says to use TP3: "left edge of tip to left edge of CB". Surely you agree this is flawed. It's nowhere near going in!
....
Please point me to any of his posts that SHOWS where the cue tip is pointed in relation to the CB on any of the 4 shots in the example.
UNTIL THAT VISUAL IS SHOWN TO BE FALSE then any criticism of the method is just SILY because the entire system is BASED on that visual sighting system!
Jim, I'd have to just echo what has been said in the interim. I was going to make a diagram exactly like Coopedeville's, but that's already been done (by Coopedeville I think).
Let me ask you this. Do you agree that if you aim AND SHOOT through the center of the cueball at the edge of the object ball, that the cueball will thusly travel along the line from the center of the cueball to the edge of the object ball? If so, do you further agree that this will always result in a half-ball hit or 30 degree cut (ignoring throw and a very slight compression effect) ?
If the answers to the first question is negative, then I'm wondering how you handle straight shots?
av84fun said:
Have YOU tried the example? Do YOU want a piece of my bank account too?
(-:
Sorry, I haven't. It wouldn't tell me much because if all the balls went in, I would surmise that I made unconscious adjustments. If they didn't, then you might suspect that I sabotaged the experiment, knowingly or unknowingly, to avoid dissonance with my pre-conceived views.
I can't afford the dollars you guys are talking about, but I would think you could afford to make a video of your example. If you could demonstrate that all four balls can be pocketed using your described method (center of tip pointing to edge of OB) - and the OB doesn't have to be center-pocketed - I'll contribute $50 for your trouble. (Believe it or not, $50 would hurt.)
But I'd have to see something like two gate balls in front of the object ball to insure that the cueball is traveling in the prescribed direction. I haven't figured out what a reasonable gate size would be, but roughly one ball diameter plus 1/16", say. Only shots where the guide balls weren't contacted would count, of course. It would be best if there were no sidespin on the cueball, but that won't change things much so a touch of it would be okay.
Jaden..."You've got to understand that because the cue tip has width you can be at various angles and some portion of the tip will appear to be at the edge of the object ball,"
At "various angles"? WHCIH angles...and why did you even write that sentence?
What YOU need to understand is what does your comment have to do with a system of 5 basic components...2 of which have nothing to do with the tip appearing to involve the edge of the cue ball.
Given that you and Patrick have missed these shots so badly and giving you both the benefit of the doubt that you are not total bangers, the possibility exists that in spite of laborious attempts on my part, I haven't explained the system adequately.
Other than that, I know I'm not blind and am reasonalby sure I'm not delusional and I can't tell you how frustratingly interesting it is for me to go to my table and pocket the shots ENDLESSLY and yet have you and Patrick report that you are missing by a mile.
So, I'm going to accept responsibility for not explaining myself very well and try one more time...in reference to the 4 ball example.
1. Say there was a whole in the middle of the CB and your cue was long enough that you could push the cue through the whole all the way to the OB.
2. But just to help the visualization, assume the OB was not round but square and was facing you directly...i.e. was oriented perpendicular to the LOC. Also assume that your cue tip had a flat and not rounded surface and is well chalked.
3. Now, push the cue through the hole in the CB and reach out to the OB. If you set the shot up properly, when the tip touchs the edge of the "ball" on a cut to the right as per Patrick's diagram...the cue tip will leave a half circle mark equal to exactly half of its width.
Here's another try.
Just draw a 2.25" circle roughly...it doesn't make much difference...to represent the CB.
Then draw a cue tip sized circle on the left edge of the DB circle so that half of the cue tip circle resides inside the CB circle and half is outside of that circle.
THAT is the sight picture and it will direct all 4 shots into the right corner pocket.
I just can't do any better than that and I must say, this is getting WIERD because I had one of the greatest pool players of all time IN MY HOUSE a month ago...demonstrated the system and he/she IMMEDIATELY UNDERSTOOD the system and IMMEDIATELY equated EACH of the TP's to the various fractional positions he/she uses.
Can you understand how WIERD it must be for me to apparantly explain the system in TWO minutes to a world champion and not be contradicted and then to have people here miss the identical shot by 3/4 of a diamond from 3 feet!!!
Regarding your comment about my having to change in order to "get anywhere in this game" might I ask where YOU are in this game?
Would you share with me
1. which world, national, state, county, city or villiage championships you have won?
I haven't won any because I rarely play in tournaments.
2. How many racks have you played with world and national champions?
Me? At least 500
3. How many hours of instruction have you taken from world and/or national champions and/or BCA Master instructors?
Me? AT LEAST 100 and double that if you coun't actual teaching that takes place while playing racks.
I don't mean to get pissy with you but your remark about "getting somewhere" was a little snippy...especially since your inability to make the system work might...as easily as anything else...result from your inability to understand a system that others have grasp IMMEDIATELY.
Or, I could just be a liar so....SCOTT LEE....I WOULD NOT FOR THE WORLD DRAG YOU INTO THIS THREAD...BUT WOULD YOU JUST KINDLY POST A SINGLE NUMBER TO EXPRESS THE PERCENTAGE ODDS THAT I AM MERELY LYING WITH 1% MEANING VIRTUALLY NO CHANCE THAT I AM JUST LYING AND 99% MEANING THAT I ALMOST CERTAINLY AM.
Jaden..."and guess what? It might work for the four shots that you specified on a table with five inch pockets. "
PROGRESS!!!! GREAT!!! Patrick missed by 3/4 of a diamond!!! SO, we have at least the following datapoint...Relative to you and me, Patrick either misunderstands the system or can't visualize it.
I'll respond to the rest of your comments later but THANKS A MILLION for at least giving it a try!!
Juanbond...
1. You are absolutely correct. That shot DOES NOT go. For reasons that must relate to our respective sets of eyes, when I shoot that shot the OB contacts the rail about a ball to the right of your diagram.
2. As I MENTIONED in my comments, there are exceptions to this and any other system...one of which are distortions when the OB is fairly close to a rail.
3. Regardless of that particular kind of error, I would suggest that ANY system that can be easily implemented and that works even 90% of the time is worthy of study...ESPECIALLY when its limitations become known and therefore is not used in any instance where flaws appear.
4. Now, please try this as I JUST did. Move the OB back up table...to the third diamond...and the CB anywhere further up table you want...on the same LOC and shoot the shot again. For me, it went perfectly from that distance.
5. Not to make excuses for an ADMITTED flaw in the system but the shot you diagramed is such a hanger that it never occured to me to test the system on it.
6. Having just reviewed the shot on my table, let me report what SEEMS to be the case but please hold all slings and arrows until I have more time to test it out. It SEEMS that MOST shots (again, I haven't tested them all) where the OB is 1 diamond or less from the foot rail AND the LOC is nearly perpendicular to the rail require TP5. If that proves to be correct, then I will add an additional exception that will forever be known as "the Juanbond Exception! (-:
7. Finally, I will modify the description of the system to state that it is intended to assit in aiming shots of a sufficient degree of difficulty to warrant the use of a system. Had I done so from the beginning, then your shot would have been excluded from the system, by definition.
And again THANKS for taking the time to put the system to additional testing. I am reminded of the old films of Werner Von Brauns early rocket shots...most of which BLEW UP! System development...like beta testing of software...is a process and I am grateful for your contribution.
