Decipher Varner's aiming technique please

[Angle Detective]

Anyone understand what he's describing here?

Nick Varner: "What I do is use parallel lines. The first line I see is a line from the edge of the cue ball toward the contact point on the OB. I keep my shaft on a parallel line to that and if you're cutting the ball to the left of that line, it will be on the right. But if you're using left English, it will be the same line, and with center or right English, it will be parallel. Once I shoot, my eyes are actually focused on the contact point on the OB. "

 

[av84fun]

Yes, that is a well known system. It works pretty much the way he stated but put in other words.

1. Stand behind the shot (say a left cut) and mentally draw a line from the left edge of the CB to the contact point.

2. Assuming a center ball hit, bend over the shot and align the cue parallel to the imaginary line discussed above.

3. Warm up stroke along that path and fix your eyes on the contack point before delivering the cue.

It works well enough on shorter shots but I abandoned that method years ago because for me, it breaks down pretty badly on long shots due to the physics of perspective.

Artists and photographers know that objects look smaller with distance and that parallel lines APPEAR to converge but do not...at least not on the earth (I seem to recall something about parallel lines actually converging in space). (-:

Anyway, in my eyes, the line convergance is meaningful on long shots...keeping in mind that if the stroke is non-parallel by even 1/4 inch, you are going to miss a long shot by a mile.

In addition, visualizing the line from the EDGE of the cb to the contact point is skewed if you are standing directly behind the line between the cb and ob so to see the line from the edge of the ball you have to sight it while standing a little off the the left on a left cut and then move back to get properly behind the shot.

It is REALLY easy to lose that imaginary line in your mind's eye when you move like that.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Pii]

Artists and photographers know that objects look smaller with distance and that parallel lines APPEAR to converge but do not...at least not on the earth (I seem to recall something about parallel lines actually converging in space). (-:

The very definition of parallel lines means that they will NEVER meet if they do then the lines are not parallel ;-)

 

[enzo]

and what he's leaving out and probably doesn't even know about (and good for him, more power to him)......... "and at the last second my instincts take over and make myself adjust correctly to pocket the ball"

 

[JoeW]

I think that another way to describe this process that does work on long shots is to think in terms of tracks that do not converge over the length of a table. See the contact point for the edge of the CB and then estimate the width of the CB on contact. I usually use two lines but three are available (left edge, right edge and center line) that is something like a railroad track. For a center ball shot my arm is in the middle of the three tracks and I can pause in the back swing to see that I am ?centered.? At times the ?tracks? are extended to the opposite rail and I have a better estimate of the angle that is used.

This tracking procedure can also be used to estimate the OB line of travel and angle estimation is improved along with estimating the contact point.

I was a professional photographer for many years so convergence and other forms of visual distortion were part of my work. None-the-less, you can estimate the CB?s width on contact and convergence need not be a problem. OAD (Old age disease may contribute).

It is nice to learn that my approach to aiming is similar to Nick Varner?s approach. There must be something to it that works. I did not learn it from him but learned it through trial and error in my attempts to place the OB in the back of the pocket on every shot during ?accuracy? practice.

The key, if there is one, is to be able to see the CB width at the end of the aim line.

 

[Angle Detective]

Still confused. The contact points don't match up this way. If you look at Joe Tucker's system, you see why. It's not the edge of the cueball that should be lining up with the object ball's contact point. As an extreme example, lining up a zero degree(straight in) shot using the cueball's edge to the object ball's contact(center) will miss by 30 degrees. There must be some adjustment that's missing in the description, and it's not for english.
Maybe what he's describing isn't the edge of the cueball lining up with the contact, but an estimated cueball contact point that's inwards from the edge the same distance as the object ball's contact point is inwards from its opposite edge. Then they would line up.

 

[frankncali]

Still confused. The contact points don't match up this way. If you look at Joe Tucker's system, you see why. It's not the edge of the cueball that should be lining up with the object ball's contact point. As an extreme example, lining up a zero degree(straight in) shot using the cueball's edge to the object ball's contact(center) will miss by 30 degrees. There must be some adjustment that's missing in the description, and it's not for english.
Maybe what he's describing isn't the edge of the cueball lining up with the contact, but an estimated cueball contact point that's inwards from the edge the same distance as the object ball's contact point is inwards from its opposite edge. Then they would line up.

I cant understand it either. If I line up the edge then and then go parallel to that then how does the ball go in??

One thought that has helped me lately is that on cut shots say more than 45 degrees or so I think about the cueball just running by it and clipping it in the right spot. Something simple but it increased my making of these shots by a lot. I use this with some aroudn 60-70 degrees and cutting it long across the table. Helps alot.

 

[jwilliams]

Artists and photographers know that objects look smaller with distance and that parallel lines APPEAR to converge but do not...at least not on the earth (I seem to recall something about parallel lines actually converging in space). (-:

The very definition of parallel lines means that they will NEVER meet if they do then the lines are not parallel ;-)

Unless of course you're talking about non-Euclidian geometries. In either a hyperbolic or a an elliptic system parallel lines can definitely meet at a point of inifinity.
(Although I'll be the first to admit this probably has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, unless Varner is playing on a table that's close to 3 miles long...which I doubt!)

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'm actually responding from my cell phone on the beach. god bless tech!

stop trying to decipher this nonsense and call Hal Houle or Ronnie V.

 

[av84fun]

The very definition of parallel lines means that they will NEVER meet if they do then the lines are not parallel ;-)

Of course. But as you must know, one of the very definitions of "perspective" is...The technique of representing three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface.

And you also surely know that parallel lines APPEAR to converge at a distance. The reason I put the would APPEAR in caps here an in the original post was to suggest the obvious...which is that the lines don't ACTUALLY converge...but in the context of the aiming system being discussed, the appearance of convergence is a pertinent detail.

As for your suggestion that parallel lines NEVER converge, you might want to read up on the concept of projective space and they hypothesis that parallel lines in projective space meet at infinity.

(-:

 

[3andstop]

I'll take it in a slightly different direction. Forget (or at least concern yourself less) the contact points. Realize that you can see the contact point and the point of aim just fine. Focus your attention and concern in "delivery".

I strongly feel that all intermediate and advanced players see the points of aim and contact fine. The missing all happens with a defect in the delivery to that point.