That is not a good way to estimate cut angle.
Basic Aiming Methods Illustrated
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
That is not a good way to estimate cut angle.
Duh, get with the program yourself. The world is changing yet you're still using an outdated diagram.
Due to CIT, the diagram is outdated and of no practical use to anyone. Either show a correct diagram that accounts for CIT or include a caveat with the diagram that one must account for CIT.
Last edited:
It most certainly is not a way of "measuring" cut angle, as the image is labeled.
DUH, not my diagram. See PJ for that.
Actually PJ illustrated the Ghost Ball principal perfectly....
You just exposed the flaw in the ghost ball method... You don't aim at the ghostball at the geometric contact...
You have to adjust your ghostball for CIT and SIT for it to work....
Most good players know this but you would be surprised by the number of sources out there that explain the system exactly as PJ diagrammed it without any caveats.....
That's not a flaw in the method; it's a flaw in the way some misinterpret the method. Ghost Ball is simply the principle that you can visualize the cue ball in contact with the object ball and aim at it. Nothing dictates that the contact point must be unadjusted for throw. The same can be said for any of the methods illustrated here.
Adjusting for throw is such a universal constant for any aiming method that it's not worth the distraction of repeatedly mentioning it. The same is true of adjusting for sidespin effects. These "deficiencies" of aiming methods are nothing more than the "aiming environment" in which all aiming takes place.
pj
chgo
What is the geometric contact.....? It would be nice to have a complete thought here.
Of course you need to adjust, when needed, for CIT and SIT. These do not happen on every shot.
When you move beyond just hoping the ball goes in the pocket to putting it where you want, where the the end point for for the OB direction of travel determines where to put the CB on the spot on the table that makes the OB go where you want when there is no concern for CIT and SIT.
This spot is the starting point on which way and how much you need to adjust based on how you feel the stroke you are going to use is gonna affect the direction of travel of the OB.
There is no flaw in ghost ball only flawed application. There is not a shot that ghost ball can not be used on. Something that can not be said about other methods.
Also, PJ version of ghost ball is just one way to use it. Move the lines down on the table and not hang there in middle air and call them direction of travel lines. Where the OB direction of travel line and the CB direction of travel line intersect is where the CB needs to be to make the OB go where you want.
Again, this is based on Babe Cranfield's arrow. He also states that there are just three lines, OB to pocket, CB to aim point and cue stick to CB.
I'll follow the advice and methods of a member of the Hall of Fame, although unofficial , but not disputed, a higher straight pool run than Mosconi on a 41/2 x 9, over 700. He is a overlooked as one of the greats in the pool world.
Duckie..... The geometric contact point would be the contact point where the balls are aimed at center pocket.....
Anyone else that didn't get it... Feel free to raise your hand.... I subscribe to the idea of no pool player left behind and will edit or post follow ups when something isn't as clear as it should be...
As far as Cranfield's Arrow goes... It was known as spot on the table before the arrow.... A 1 inch ferrule with a decent tip happens to be about half the diameter of a ball... Lay the tip close to the object ball and sight the pocket and viola... The spot on the table will be where the ferrule meets wood..... Cranfield may have used it but it predates his arrow....
I'd been steering clear of the threads you had been in because I truly think you truly love pool and you are charting your own course and it was wrong of me to judge...
Enjoy the game on your own terms... That's one of the things that makes this game great... There is no single cookie cutter method to the top.....
I truly hope HAMB and the Arrow work out for you and I will leave it at that... There is zero sarcasm in that... We are ALL on our own journeys and will have different paths that we take.....
Anyone else that didn't get it... Feel free to raise your hand.... I subscribe to the idea of no pool player left behind and will edit or post follow ups when something isn't as clear as it should be...
As far as Cranfield's Arrow goes... It was known as spot on the table before the arrow.... A 1 inch ferrule with a decent tip happens to be about half the diameter of a ball... Lay the tip close to the object ball and sight the pocket and viola... The spot on the table will be where the ferrule meets wood..... Cranfield may have used it but it predates his arrow....
I'd been steering clear of the threads you had been in because I truly think you truly love pool and you are charting your own course and it was wrong of me to judge...
Enjoy the game on your own terms... That's one of the things that makes this game great... There is no single cookie cutter method to the top.....
I truly hope HAMB and the Arrow work out for you and I will leave it at that... There is zero sarcasm in that... We are ALL on our own journeys and will have different paths that we take.....
PJ,
Thank you for posting the excellent illustrations. FYI, I've added them to my aiming systems resource page, where these and other aiming systems and concepts are illustrated, described, and demonstrated.
Good work,
Dave
Stevie Moore swears by the Pro one system . Seems work well for him!
Bottom of Ball Aiming
pj
chgo
......
pj
chgo
......
Last edited:
Double the Distance is probably the closest to what I have been doing (with success) for the past 20 years. I started with GB, like most folks, then realized that for me, it wasn't quite precise enough for visualizing the line. I personally have no problem finding center of CB and OB, I use the virtual vertical line going up from the resting point on the cloth of both balls, which runs through the center. I can also visualize the contact point very well. I measure success in the system by watching the contact point and verifying I'm hitting the OB exactly where I wanted. For this reason, I see no reason to look at some imaginary point on the rail or any where else along the CB's actual path; I'm lined up with the system but looking at the contact point on the OB so that on contact I can judge if my line was correct (which it usually is). Getting it in the pocket and getting the CB to react the way I want are a separate (and essential) part of the process, which requires a method of addressing the CB to get past the physics that make the perfect geometry not work. SIT and CIT are facts of life in any system, so we learn to adjust with the other variables like speed, adjusting the contact point for a thinner or thicker cut, spin, etc. In my case, I use the TOI/3 part pocket method in the Double the Distance system; no spin, aiming thicker (the contact point lined up with the inner third of the pocket) and use only top or bottom and speed to adjust the post collision angle of the CB for position.
All of the various systems end up in the same place...center CB lined up so that the CB strikes the OB on the desired contact point. Regardless of the way we get lined up, or what line we're looking at when we pull the trigger, we get to the same point and then use a "method" of addressing the CB to account for and overcome the variables that impact on perfect geometry.
Kudos to PJ for taking the time to sketch out the various systems visually. We should spend our time discussing the "method", assuming our systems all work (which they can and do). I suggest that we miss most shots because of how we execute the method more than how we aim.