There is certainly nothing in the numbering or math that has anything to do with 5 and a half. Lots of people who describe systems use names for them that don't really mean anything useful. I guess the inventor of this system is one of those people.Thanks for the link
But i dont see any relation to the number 5 1/2
What am i missing?
![]()
I believe the five and a half system is the same as the diamond system.
According to this, the name refers to how aiming between the corner and the first diamond, or 5, without english will result in the ball going to the halfway point between the initial position and the corner. If you hit it with english, you have to aim towards the first diamond, or 10.
The system became more complex, but the name stuck, I guess?
You’re welcome.
It says the name is a remnant of an era when they didn’t have chalk, so there was no english being used. It also says the 5 1/2 system is just up to the third rail. If you extend it to the fourth rail, then it’s technically the diamond system, but at least in Korea, the two names are interchangeable.
BTW in the corner 5 or Diamond system as per Hoppe's book if the cue ball is located where the foot spot or head spot is , it is starting position 5.5 , the corners are position 5. The cue ball positions run 1.5,, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5. 5.5, 6. 7. 8.
BTW in the corner 5 or Diamond system as per Hoppe's book if the cue ball is located where the foot spot or head spot is , it is starting position 5.5 , the corners are position 5. The cue ball positions run 1.5,, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5. 5.5, 6. 7. 8.
Which is ALL incorrect for the short cushion, for the rubber we've been playing on for the last 45 years!
Corner 50, next diamond, 60, center of short rail 70, next 0.5 80, next full diamond 90, next 0.3 diamond 100, next 0.3, 110, last 0.3 = 120.