I believe Marvin Chin discussed this aiming method in his book, "Billiards Accuracy," which was published in the 1970s.
Last edited:
double-the-distance aiming method (PIM: Pocket Intersection Method)
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
I believe Marvin Chin discussed this aiming method in his book, "Billiards Accuracy," which was published in the 1970s.
Seems like alot of center to edge talk. hmmmm, heard something obout that once.
Great points Joey. FYI, Colin Colenso did a great job summarizing these and many other reasons why "aiming systems" can be beneficial (even if they aren't "geometrically correct"). The list and descriptions (along with relevant quotes from others, including you) can be found here:
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
I was hoping some people would comment on the questions below (see bold).
quoted from an earlier post:
With parallel sighting, it seems more like a parallel-line contact-point-to-contact-point aiming method instead of double-the-distance.
If you sight along parallel lines, don't you still need to locate the ghost-ball center along one of the lines to get a point of aim, assuming you will be hitting and sighting through the center of the cue ball during your stroke? In that case, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to start with the ghost ball center (e.g., using NV 3.2 - Using the cue to help visualize the impact and aiming lines)?
Do you or others actually use any of this stuff with any types of shots, or is it more just an interesting collection of geometric curiosities? It still seems to me that straight ghost-ball might be easier for most beginners, rather than trying to estimate small distances along different lines.
Thanks,
Dave
quoted from an earlier post:
With parallel sighting, it seems more like a parallel-line contact-point-to-contact-point aiming method instead of double-the-distance.
If you sight along parallel lines, don't you still need to locate the ghost-ball center along one of the lines to get a point of aim, assuming you will be hitting and sighting through the center of the cue ball during your stroke? In that case, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to start with the ghost ball center (e.g., using NV 3.2 - Using the cue to help visualize the impact and aiming lines)?
Do you or others actually use any of this stuff with any types of shots, or is it more just an interesting collection of geometric curiosities? It still seems to me that straight ghost-ball might be easier for most beginners, rather than trying to estimate small distances along different lines.
Thanks,
Dave
It's a good thing you keep supplying Links to the different parts of your encyclopedia of pool information because it is becoming voluminous and not just more valuable. Oh yeah, where do I send my payment for the inclusions? Or is it the other way around?
I always liked the way Colin explained his pool knowledge. :smile:
JoeyA
They both use parallel lines, but differ other than that. The "parallel lines" system uses one set of parallel lines to find the CB contact point and OB contact point - using them to visualize the CB/OB alignment is up to you. The "double the overlap" system uses the OB contact point (already found by another method) to create another set of parallel lines that visualize the CB/OB aim alignment for you.
And if visualizing the ghost ball gets you to the same OB contact point, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier just to start with the OB contact point? Obviously not for everybody. The reason we have more than one way to aim is that different players find different ways easiest.
I don't use any of these systems as systems, but I use parts of some of them in my own "system":
1. find the OB contact point by imagining the line from OB to pocket (this is used in more than one system)
2. imagine the CB contact point's position by visualizing the "complementary" point on the 3-D opposite surface of the CB (this is like "parallel line" aiming)
3. aim the CB contact point at the OB contact point, adjusted if squirve and throw are factors (this is done purely by memory and "feel"), paying attention to where the CB's center is pointed for future cross-reference (this is like ghost ball aiming)
I think that's the most straightforward way to show beginners what they're trying to accomplish, but not necessarily the best way for each of them to try to accomplish it. A good teacher knows different ways of looking at a problem because students don't all see things alike.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I haven't read the entire thread so I will apologize if this has already been posted. I had a couple of books on aiming systems I bought around 94/95. Both were Asian in origin, one was Japanese and the other I'm not sure about. Both were rewritten in English, while one was very extensive on a system similar if not this exact one. The other had this one and several others. I do not know what happened to these books in my travels. I can't remember the titles either. I do remember one did have several different ways to apply the visual information to find your aiming point. Hope this helps.
Really, it seems your the one begging for CTE info. I think you know more than your letting on(secret CTE user).
Hopefully this question fits into this thread, but I'd rather not create another aiming thread on here (everyone knows why).
But, I keep seeing you guys refer to ghost ball, double-the-distance, parallel-over, etc, as..... "geometrically correct" systems and say the others aren't.
I'm obviously someone who thinks CTE, 90/90 are each geometrically correct because I make every single shot on the table with them with no conscious perception correction or intuition.... which leads me to this question....
Is there really such thing as a "geometrically correct" system in pool? The reason why I ask is just because a system is geometrically correct on a 6" x 3" embedded JPG, doesn't mean it's a better system than ANY other.
Let me explain:
When I look at this double-the-distance stuff, I think it has the exact same fallible fundamental issue: perception of the point. When you're 5' away from your shot, there's no one that can accurately identify that doubled-distance point. Your brain might know how to make the shot and will point your cue in the right direction; however, if I gave anyone in this thread a laser pointer and asked them to point the the "spot", I'd bet even money on everyone here they couldn't hit "the spot."
It's the exact same issue with ghost ball... i'd bet the same that no one can accurately point to 1 1/8" off the edge of a sphere from a few feet away. You'll all come close.... but no one on AZB would be exact.
When you step into your shot, REGARDLESS of what the ghostball/doubled-distance-point is, it's NOT the system that makes that ball--- it's your cognition and trained perception.
You guys know I love the eyeball game: http://woodgears.ca/eyeball/
This little game proves my point. What you think you see isn't what IS. If what you see isn't what IS--- what good is geometrically correct while in the heat of action?
So....because no one on azb can accurately determine what 1 1/8" is from 5" away and no one on azb can accurately double a distance (whatever that is) from any medium length and beyond.... what good are they being geometrically correct? Just because you can make the shot (even using these methods to pocket the ball), does not mean you can pick those points out--- it means you're brain is forcing an adjustment.
Finally, let's assume for a moment that every single system that's ever been discussed here is as you would put it.... "geometrically correct."
Wouldn't the best method be the one that required the least conscious adjustment and the least perception correction?
I'm not saying any other system can beat up this system or any other system--- I'm just making a point that the pool math guys like to explain how a system is geometrically correct and how they feel another rival system is not--- however, trust me when I say that's all horseshit in the highest magnitude since no one out of the 20k people on azb can ACCURATELY identify the points mentioned in this thread at a distance (your eyes won't allow it..... your brain might compensate and SEE it... but your eyes won't).
This only proves that theory and execution are two separate animals. It's the system that helps best with execution--- that's your huckleberry.
Whatever system drops the most balls is likely your "most" geometrically correct system (whichever system that might be).
But, I keep seeing you guys refer to ghost ball, double-the-distance, parallel-over, etc, as..... "geometrically correct" systems and say the others aren't.
I'm obviously someone who thinks CTE, 90/90 are each geometrically correct because I make every single shot on the table with them with no conscious perception correction or intuition.... which leads me to this question....
Is there really such thing as a "geometrically correct" system in pool? The reason why I ask is just because a system is geometrically correct on a 6" x 3" embedded JPG, doesn't mean it's a better system than ANY other.
Let me explain:
When I look at this double-the-distance stuff, I think it has the exact same fallible fundamental issue: perception of the point. When you're 5' away from your shot, there's no one that can accurately identify that doubled-distance point. Your brain might know how to make the shot and will point your cue in the right direction; however, if I gave anyone in this thread a laser pointer and asked them to point the the "spot", I'd bet even money on everyone here they couldn't hit "the spot."
It's the exact same issue with ghost ball... i'd bet the same that no one can accurately point to 1 1/8" off the edge of a sphere from a few feet away. You'll all come close.... but no one on AZB would be exact.
When you step into your shot, REGARDLESS of what the ghostball/doubled-distance-point is, it's NOT the system that makes that ball--- it's your cognition and trained perception.
You guys know I love the eyeball game: http://woodgears.ca/eyeball/
This little game proves my point. What you think you see isn't what IS. If what you see isn't what IS--- what good is geometrically correct while in the heat of action?
So....because no one on azb can accurately determine what 1 1/8" is from 5" away and no one on azb can accurately double a distance (whatever that is) from any medium length and beyond.... what good are they being geometrically correct? Just because you can make the shot (even using these methods to pocket the ball), does not mean you can pick those points out--- it means you're brain is forcing an adjustment.
Finally, let's assume for a moment that every single system that's ever been discussed here is as you would put it.... "geometrically correct."
Wouldn't the best method be the one that required the least conscious adjustment and the least perception correction?
I'm not saying any other system can beat up this system or any other system--- I'm just making a point that the pool math guys like to explain how a system is geometrically correct and how they feel another rival system is not--- however, trust me when I say that's all horseshit in the highest magnitude since no one out of the 20k people on azb can ACCURATELY identify the points mentioned in this thread at a distance (your eyes won't allow it..... your brain might compensate and SEE it... but your eyes won't).
This only proves that theory and execution are two separate animals. It's the system that helps best with execution--- that's your huckleberry.
Whatever system drops the most balls is likely your "most" geometrically correct system (whichever system that might be).
Last edited:
Well said... I like it.
I know not everybody thinks so, but I sure find it useful at times (when I don't remember a certain fact, or where to find a certain video). Forum search engines aren't always very helpful.
How much do you think your quote is worth?
Me too. Colin is very knowledgeable and experienced, and he is always respectful, insightful, open-minded, understanding, empathetic, and polite ... a true model for all internet posters. The few videos he has posted on YouTube (which I have links to) are quite excellent. I hope he plans to do a lot more.
Anybody know what's up with Colin? He hasn't been around for a while.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
How much do you think your quote is worth?
Dave
Let's see..... I was always told that you should not be shy about telling someone what you think you are worth.... but my quote's value,....? ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS. :grin:
Later,
JoeyA
I like it. I think we should call it SPAM (Super Pat's Aiming Method). :grin-square:
Now for some serious questions for you and others:
Do you sight along the contact-point-to-contact-point line?
Or do you site through the center of the CB?
Do you change where you sight for different shots (e.g., thin cuts, vs. full hits)?
Do you sight along the cue when using English?
By "where do you sight," I mean: where do you align your "vision center," which may or may not be through your dominant eye? By "vision center," I mean the head alignment that allows you to see a center-ball straight-in shot as straight, with the tip appearing to be at the center of the CB. For some people, this might be with the cue under their dominant eye. For others, it might be with the cue under their nose, or somewhere in between (or even outside of the eyes?). For more info and resources on this topic, see:
I look forward to reading what different people think about sighting and the questions above. it doesn't seem like this has been discussed a lot (not lately anyway). Gene's PERFECT AIM system seems to be about sighting (and not aiming), and his thread is ginormous, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion or debate in the thread concerning "best practices" and/or "good options" for sighting different types of shots. An obvious option is to always align your "vision center" with the center of the CB, regardless of the type of shot, but it doesn't seem like all people agree with this. What do you and others think about this? I hope Gene will get involved with some of these discussions since he seems to have strong opinions and good ideas about sighting.
Agreed. Actually, with beginners, almost any "system" can be helpful (per the benefits of aiming systems). For example, telling a beginner to always aim the center of the CB at the edge of the OB (with or without making adjustments with slight bridge shifts and/or pivots) would probably help them make some shots they would miss otherwise.
Thanks for answering all of the previous questions. I look forward to your answers (and answers from others) concerning the new questions.
Regards,
Dave
Excellent points! Aiming, visualization, and perception at the pool table ain't easy. That's one reason why this game is so fun and requires so much practice. I think your points bring up good questions to ask when evaluating any "system" for use at the table.
Regards,
Dave
PS: I agree with you that the double-the-distance "system" is not very practical for use at the table, but I like how this thread is progressing. I hope the "sighting" topic gets more attention now.
OK. Your check for "ABSOLUTELY PRICELESS" is in the mail.
Regards,
Dave
PS: If instead you feel like I provided value to you by quoting one of your posts, I would be satisfied with a check for $80. Then I could buy Gene's new DVD.
This only shows you don't know what "geometrically correct" means (or, for that matter, how your own system works). "Geometrically correct" means the system can theoretically show you the correct alignment without adjustment, even though using the system requires some human judgement to follow its steps accurately.
"Non-geometrically correct" systems like CTE cannot show you the correct alignment even if you follow the steps accurately. They require human judgement to follow the system steps to get you close to the required alignment plus more human judgement, without assistance from the system, to get you the rest of the way to the actual required alignment.
pj
chgo
You missed the entire point of my post. Your geometrically correct systems can't show you the correct alignment in practice, unless you get lucky. Don't get so confrontational
.... I'm sure you'd bet your wife, kids, family dog that I know EXACTLY what geometrically correct means in any aspect of pool. I'm sure no one on the AZB forum would really think I honestly don't know what "geometrically correct" means in terms of aiming.CTE is a geometrically correct system....no less geometrically correct than any other system on earth. I adjust far less with CTE than this system or ghostball...if I adjust at all. With CTE you deal with absolutes - with this system and ghost ball -- you deal with imaginary points. I love ya PJ but you don't know enough about CTE to call it "geometrically incorrect." All you know is: sight CTE, offset, pivot to center. If I'm wrong, feel free to fill me in with the details.
I don't wanna get into a CTE battle because I'm far too apathetic. I'm just asking you to cite your reference points for calling CTE geometrically incorrect. CTE gives me the EXACT line in practice *** I'd like to hear from anyone in the world reading the thread who thinks CTE is geometrically incorrect - to prove why it is. This'll be fun. Let's keep this entertaining and informative.I mean this with the utmost respect-- >> much love, spider
P.S. Let me tell ya how this'll play out.... no one in this thread will wanna post what they know about CTE because they'd pull their skirt down and show how little they really know. You heard it hear first... no one will step up and answer my request to cite their reasons.
I'll keep participating as long as it's friendly.
Last edited:
I'm a little late to this thread, maybe because I'm not too big on "systems" in general. This particular one works quite well and is very accurate. Probably great for practice drills etc. There is only one problem. It is UNWORKABLE in game situations. Yes, that's what I said. Unworkable! Try using this system a few times in an actual game when you have a three quarters length table shot. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to find that perfect spot to hit the object ball. And any momentum you had will be lost as well, as you stare down at the faraway ball. Actually anything half a table or longer will be tough to figure accurately. And only slow you down.
My best guess is that if you tried to use this system exclusively on long shots, you'd miss more than you make. Up close to the object ball it's okay but still not the best way to play pool IMO. When you've been playing pool long enough (as most of you have), that little computer in your brain that has seen every shot thousands of times is your best ally. You know instinctively where to aim without needing to do any conscious calculating. Sure you might take a look through the object ball to the pocket on a tough cut shot just to get your bearings, but that's about it. When I see a player standing up and using their cue to draw a line through the object ball to figure out where to hit it, that tells me one thing. They're uncertain. And if they do it too often I KNOW they won't win the match.
Sorry if I burst anyone's bubble but I guess that's how I roll. I've been banging pool balls a long time and I will always tell it like it is. This is one place I hold nothing back, especially when it comes to pool advice. See you down the road. Now can I get a gapper till next time. :grin:
My best guess is that if you tried to use this system exclusively on long shots, you'd miss more than you make. Up close to the object ball it's okay but still not the best way to play pool IMO. When you've been playing pool long enough (as most of you have), that little computer in your brain that has seen every shot thousands of times is your best ally. You know instinctively where to aim without needing to do any conscious calculating. Sure you might take a look through the object ball to the pocket on a tough cut shot just to get your bearings, but that's about it. When I see a player standing up and using their cue to draw a line through the object ball to figure out where to hit it, that tells me one thing. They're uncertain. And if they do it too often I KNOW they won't win the match.
Sorry if I burst anyone's bubble but I guess that's how I roll. I've been banging pool balls a long time and I will always tell it like it is. This is one place I hold nothing back, especially when it comes to pool advice. See you down the road. Now can I get a gapper till next time. :grin:
Last edited: