Aimpoint Reference System

[Patrick Johnson]

I get it all too well. The wider the cut the further away the aiming and contact points are.

By the way, I think there's a lot of usefulness in your way of seeing cuts. I make a point of noticing how far to the side of the contact point I'm aiming the CB's center - "this far from the contact point" is a more precise measurement for the subconscious to memorize than "this amount of CB/OB overlap".

Of course, it's equivalent to aiming at the ghost ball center, but thinking of it as "x fraction of an inch to the side of the contact point" seems to work better for me and my (sometimes Teflon-coated) subconscious memory.

pj
chgo

 

[plfrg]

By the way, I think there's a lot of usefulness in your way of seeing cuts. I make a point of noticing how far to the side of the contact point I'm aiming the CB's center - "this far from the contact point" is a more precise measurement for the subconscious to memorize than "this amount of CB/OB overlap".

Of course, it's equivalent to aiming at the ghost ball center, but thinking of it as "x fraction of an inch to the side of the contact point" seems to work better for me.

pj
chgo

This actually points to one weakness of the aimpoint system that I've overcome by adjusting my shot routine.

The aimpoint provides a solid basis for virtually every shot you can make. In the beginning a person only needs to focus on making balls and ingraining the concept of the aimpoint to get that feeling when the shot is on.

However, running balls is important to winning, so early on it's important to get over aiming and move to position. The aimpoint method does not automatically provide you with two critical components of position:

1. Direction (where the CB is going)
2. Distance (how far the CB will go)

I believe direction is fairly easy to learn. The tangent line and other helpful ideas are plentiful. Dr Dave's site has many. I've developed several drills to learn CB direction control.

Distance is more difficult. I believe most of the industry gets this wrong and calls it "speed control". However, it's distance that matters, not necessarily speed. The thinness of cut provides the key to distances control *not* speed of the shot. The aimpoint method doesn't automatically provide you with the thickness of cut. Fraction of ball systems automatically include this info (it's one of its strengths). Most other systems do not.

I've developed a few drills to incorporate both direction and distance into the shot routine so these two components are integral to fine tuning the aimpoint system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This actually points to one weakness of the aimpoint system that I've overcome by adjusting my shot routine.

The aimpoint provides a solid basis for virtually every shot you can make. In the beginning a person only needs to focus on making balls and ingraining the concept of the aimpoint to get that feeling when the shot is on.

However, running balls is important to winning, so early on it's important to get over aiming and move to position. The aimpoint method does not automatically provide you with two critical components of position:

1. Direction (where the CB is going)
2. Distance (how far the CB will go)

I believe direction is fairly easy to learn. The tangent line and other helpful ideas are plentiful. Dr Dave's site has many. I've developed several drills to learn CB direction control.

Distance is more difficult. I believe most of the industry gets this wrong and calls it "speed control". However, it's distance that matters, not necessarily speed. The thinness of cut provides the key to distances control *not* speed of the shot. The aimpoint method doesn't automatically provide you with the thickness of cut. Fraction of ball systems automatically include this info (it's one of its strengths). Most other systems do not.

I've developed a few drills to incorporate both direction and distance into the shot routine so these two components are integral to fine tuning the aimpoint system.

I think what you're saying here is CB distance (ignoring top/bottom speed and rails) is determined by the combination of initial speed and thickness of hit on the OB...?

Since thickness of hit is analogous to tip distance from contact point, awareness of that is "built into" my method - I'm sure you can find a way to be aware of it with yours too.

pj
chgo

 

[duckie]

First you can not have distance without speed. The speed of the ball is what gives it distance. Now you may think in terms of distance in where to place the CB but it is the proper speed control that will get the CB to that spot you picked.

Ball speed control is the key to long runs in 14.1. You to control the speed of the ball you control the travel of the ball.

There is no weakness in this system. The weakness is in wanting a system that tells you everything that is going to happen with a shot. The sole purpose of arrow to give you a real world aim point nothing more. The rest is practice and drills.

Of course the greater the CB/OB angle the less transfer of energy to the OB from the CB the softer the stroke to use. See, didn't use the words thin or thick to describe the type of hit. This is where industry gets it it wrong since it is impossible to hit a ball thinner or thick. What is being discussed when these terms are used is the CB/OB angle in reality.

But since pool is so visual, people discuss that are hitting the ball thick or thin when in fact they are not.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

See, didn't use the words thin or thick to describe the type of hit. This is where industry gets it it wrong since it is impossible to hit a ball thinner or thick. What is being discussed when these terms are used is the CB/OB angle in reality.

But since pool is so visual, people discuss that are hitting the ball thick or thin when in fact they are not.

And what you get wrong is that we're trying to communicate, which is facilitated by using terms that everybody understands even if they're not your favorites.

pj
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

And what you get wrong is that we're trying to communicate, which is facilitated by using terms that everybody understands even if they're not your favorites.

pj
chgo

Yeah, my favorite "QA Tester duckie" retort, is when -- methinks it was Mikjary -- was explaining a hit by saying he "digs into" the cue ball, and "QA Tester duckie" replied, "first, it's impossible to dig into a cue ball unless you use a drill."

<facepalm>,
-Sean

 

[LAMas]

Yeah, my favorite "QA Tester duckie" retort, is when -- methinks it was Mikjary -- was explaining a hit by saying he "digs into" the cue ball, and "QA Tester duckie" replied, "first, it's impossible to dig into a cue ball unless you use a drill."

<facepalm>,
-Sean

Billiard balls are made of plastic and there will be some compression/flattening, from perfectly round, of both impact surfaces - digging in so to speak....unliss the hit is very thin and just a kiss:smile:

 

[plfrg]

I think what you're saying here is CB distance (ignoring top/bottom speed and rails) is determined by the combination of initial speed and thickness of hit on the OB...?

Since thickness of hit is analogous to tip distance from contact point, awareness of that is "built into" my method - I'm sure you can find a way to be aware of it with yours too.

pj
chgo

Yes, however, thickness of hit has way more to do with CB distance than speed. I can hit the CB very hard and stop it dead on the spot, or I can hit it relatively soft and have it travel the length of the table. The thickness of hit is a critical component of CB distance control.

I was actually saying this is not built into the aimpoint reference as opposed to being inherent in fractional aiming (not sure if that's what you are saying?). Building that awareness of thickness of hit may sound easy, but executing under pressure makes things interesting, especially when a system like this is first learned. I spend a lot of time ensuring my training adheres to solid principles to ensure the methods work under pressure.

I think of distance with a reference speed shot so that when I look at the hit, I see and think distance as opposed to 'half ball hit'. IE when I see half ball hit I think something like '8 diamonds distance' meaning the CB will travel close to 8 diamonds when hit with a reference speed (and adjust from there). I mentally convert fraction to distance. Of course during actual play there can be no conscious thought process so this all must become subconscious and automatic.

Just using the simple diagram I showed and using the tool will get someone to a solid C player and maybe a B level. Incorporating position components are necessary to move beyond that. I consider my aiming and shot routine to be virtually one and the same so I don't separate the two (except for beginners at the very start). Aiming for me is a process in motion.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Just using the simple diagram I showed and using the tool will get someone to a solid C player and maybe a B level. Incorporating position components are necessary to move beyond that.

I must be misunderstanding you - or we have different definitions of "B player". By my definition a "B player" would already be pretty proficient at position play.

pj
chgo

 

[plfrg]

I must be misunderstanding you - or we have different definitions of "B player". By my definition a "B player" would already be pretty proficient at position play.

pj
chgo

Not sure about a precise definition but I've seen 'B players' (at least some of them) that can't reliably run more than 2 or 3 balls consistently under pressure. Being a good shot maker will get you to that level. These rating systems seem to be all over the board. I'm working from something like D, C, B, A, master, pro. where you might have additional increments (+/-) so I don't consider a B player very high level.

My main point is that just learning how to aim, without incorporating distance and direction for CB position, will only get someone to a basic level.

 

[sfleinen]

Billiard balls are made of plastic and there will be some compression/flattening, from perfectly round, of both impact surfaces - digging in so to speak....unliss the hit is very thin and just a kiss:smile:

Yup, I'm very familiar with the fact that plastic balls deform at their point of contact. This is easily proven with a small standing strip of carbon paper resting on the object ball (carbon side against the object ball's surface) and hitting the cue ball into that carbon paper. The harder you hit the cue ball into the object ball, the larger circumference of a carbon spot is left on the object ball, showing how deeply the balls "flatten" at the point of contact. But that wasn't the issue.

The issue is that anyone who read Mike's (Mikjary's) description of "digging into" the cue ball knew what he was talking about. In fact, when I read his description, I actually could feel the sensation in my grip hand of what he was talking about. I totally "got it." Anyone knows a cue tip isn't going to literally "penetrate" the surface of the plastic cue ball, but here comes "QA Tester duckie" to the literary rescue, because he didn't like the fact that Mike's description had to do with a system or trick to spinning a ball into a pocket.

-Sean

 

[duckie]

The only reply I have is that those that can not stay somewhat on topic in a thread and only post cheap ass reply's that have nothing to do with the topic shows a great deal of disrespect for the person that started the thread and the intent of the thread.

You got a issue with me, start a thread about it so we can go at it.