Ghost Ball Aiming System= Wrong

pro-player said:
Oh and please give me a link to Ron Shephard's article, this is getting too funny :)
Click to expand...

http://www.tcbilliards.com/articles/

The 4 documents starting with APAAP.

The relevant bit on throw compensation I found in the 2nd document on page 46.

Phill Capelle also described the behaviour in his "play your best pool" book.

What gives you the impression that I am a chump? I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may be a pro player even though you don't know the basic principals of the game.
 
Joseph Cues said:
8BB, I agree with you a %100.
I admire your conviction as well.
Happy shooting.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your support Joseph.

I noticed your subtle mention of the "thinner" hit but I think it went whoosh over pro players head. :D

I usually lurk on RSB and CCB, and find it bizzare that pro player has not been tarred and feathered for his statements! :)

IMHO, pool is hard enough without people spreading wrong information about it.

Wish Fred Agnir was here to see this one...

8ballbanger
 
Last edited:
For me if I aim the center of the CB at the center of the OB the OB will go straight to the intended pocket providing that my aim an stroke are right on. If I aim the ceinter of the CB to a spot say to the left of the OB edge that is the distance = to 1/2 the diameter of the OB then the right side of ther CB will kiss the sift side of the OB and the OB will roll to the right at about 90 degrees or perpendicular to the cue stroke.

This sounds like Mosconi saying to aim the spot on the OB that goes to the pocket (a spot where a line coming from the center of the intended pocket exits the suface of the OB) with a corresponding spot on the CB as in the descriptions above (center to center on a straight in shot and the right edge of the CB contacting the left edge of the OB for a 90 degree cut).

Another obvious point of aim is aiming the center of the CB at the furthest edge (at the belt line at 3 or 9 o-clock) of the OB resuts in a 30 degree cut to the opposite side that is contacted by the CB. This is a traditional spot shot aiming the center of the CB placed near the right or left 2nd spot in the kitchen at the 3 or 9 o-clock edge of the OB respectively. So whenever I see a 30 degree cut I simply aim the center of the CB at the dorresponding edge of the OB.

Given these examples as a reference and an accurate aim and a straight stroke the challange is to make the necessary compensations for a slight right or left angle cut from a straight in shot and those cuts between 30 degrees to 90 degrees which takes practice aiming the center of the CB at the various point of aim between the center of the OB, left or right edge of the OB and the left or right point of aim that is 1/2 the diameter as a distance away from the left or right edge of the OB to acheive a 90 degree cut.

Others here say to move the bridge laterally or the butt of the cue
to apply the desired English and then .... practice, practice.
 
Mungtor said:
Originally asked by Instroke

Now - does anybody agree with my theory that all systems are geared towards putting the body/cue in the proper line to make the ball?

That is an interesting thought, but I can't agree that it is really a function of an aiming system. It seems to me that body/cue alignment is a result of chosing an aim point based on a system. For a system to work on body/cue alignment it would have to address stance which, with the exception of applying back hand english, they don't seem to.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I just have noticed that if I use any number of aiming systems to line up the shot my cue always ends up in the same place. I guess I should have said that my theory is that all the aiming systems that work do so because they force the cuestick to be in the proper alignment to make the shot.

John
 
I read somewhere once that almost all pro players use outside english on extreme cut shots, the theory was not that it helped throw the ball into the pocket but that it simply negated any natural throw passed from the CB to the object ball, I don't believe everything I read but it sounded good at the time. Can any pro players confirm or deny that statement?

I started playing using the ghost ball system and the reason it sounded so good to me is because it usually seems to be effective except on extreme cuts or when using right or left english where throw is a factor, which I've learned to adjust for. I still tend to line up the object ball with a pocket and an imaginary cueball when I shoot, I practice alot now though and I have to wonder how many of those unconcious adjustments am I making?

When I practice I try to make sure it's quality practice and almost everytime I miss I can trace it back to my stroke, I usually know if I missed or not before the cueball even strikes the object ball, but I am still very interested in trying some of these alternate aiming systems, thanks for mentioning them.

edit: P.S. couldn't using various left and right english be used the same as cutting slighly thinner or thicker? In that respect it kind of fits what you say.
 
Last edited:
I think the only way to get "way more" than 90 degree cut shot is to use a bit of masse. But then again, that's not really a cut shot.

On a question whether some shot is possible given some condition, I wouldn't always listen to great players. Great players can give fantastic advices to us for playing the game, but when it comes to billiard physics and theory...uhm...no. You need proper education in physics and mathematics to understand billiard physics. Right or wrong?

I noticed that good players can really be stubborn sometimes. The best player in my club is convinced that top pro's break the 9ball rack with the speed of over 125 mph. He plays really well, but being realistic is not one of his strong points!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit of analogy for all of you...Suppose you want to learn race car driving, and F1 champion Michael Schumacher is standing next to you. Of course he could give you some valuable advices on how to drive properly!

But suppose you have a theoretical question on what is the possible minimum braking distance given the car weight, tires, type of brakes, track conditions...etc. Who would you address the question to? Michael the F1 champ, or one of his top engineers at the Ferrari team?
 
I still can't get the WEI table to work, can someone post it up for me?

8ballbanger, have you ever heard of bending balls? If so, please post what you think it is.
 
pro-player,

Go to this site

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/pooltable2.html

If you don’t have the flash program (shockwave) on your computer, you’ll need to install it. It should ask you if you want to install it, if you don’t have it. It’s free, just follow the instructions, then you should be good to go.

To test it, copy the following text string (Ctrl+C) from START to END here:

START(%AY1O4%BY0R3%CO2R5%DS7L7%ES9R4%FS9P9%GS8O4%HR3O3%IY1P8%JO1L5%KO2P9%LO1O3%MP8O3%NS8N0%OO1M7%PY1L9)END

And then open up a new browser window and go to the site above. Then paste the string of text at that site, using the paste button or Ctrl+V.

Rick
 
pro-player said:
I still can't get the WEI table to work, can someone post it up for me?

8ballbanger, have you ever heard of bending balls? If so, please post what you think it is.
Click to expand...

Pro-player,

Are you talking about when you have a ball slightly in your path to the object ball and you apply a little left or right to get the cue ball to move around the obstacle and then return on it's natural course? I think this is what you mean by bending the ball.
Also, the 90 degree shot I have seen made and came close myself but it was on the back rail and in order for the player to make it he hit rail first with tremendous inside english. I can't say definitively that it can't be done otherwise but it's hard for me to imagine the shot considering the point on the object ball you need to hit isn't visible.
Unless you are talking about bending the ball into the object ball which would still require a ton of skill and at least for me, a lot of luck.

Thanks,
Dave
 
Re: Re: 8ballbanger

8ballbanger said:
The subject of contact induced throw is explained at length and in great detial by Ron Shepard in Amateur Physics for the Amateur Pool Player. I stand by his knowledge and suggest you read this document yourself. If you still have faith in the validity of your initial statement, I suggest you post it to RSB and see how many people accept its validity.


I can't say that I've been in agreement with Pro-Player on his stance about aiming systems and that pro's use No aiming system. It might not be the ghost ball, but it's one of the many that are in existence, he just doesn't have a name for it. But in your case, Ron Shepard and Fred Agnir as the supreme authorities in the game of pool? You have GOT to be kidding me! A mechanical engineer and a Ph.D. professional paper writer whose knowledge you stand by? I'd be very surprised if any of your profile information is correct, I think you might be one of them or a RSB lackey that's shilling for their self- professed expertise. Furthermore, NOBODY accepts ANYTHING on RSB so why bother. And although I have no clue who Pro-Player is, I'll put $1,000 up with you and have Pro play either one of them.

.....................drivermaker
Click to expand...
 
I'll play and I'll use an aiming system on every shot and I'll explain how I'm compensating for curve, deflection and throw on all shots. Lets just make sure pro player doesn't turn into Keither over night.

Joe T
 
I also disagree with pro player on thicker or thinner issue, and btw, like it or not, it comes down to mathematics, physics, etc.
 
Pro-player,

just about everything you say is opposite of the truth. You are getting confused. 8ballbanger is right in what he is saying. Don't be so cocky, you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Re: Re: Re: 8ballbanger

drivermaker said:
8ballbanger said:
The subject of contact induced throw is explained at length and in great detial by Ron Shepard in Amateur Physics for the Amateur Pool Player. I stand by his knowledge and suggest you read this document yourself. If you still have faith in the validity of your initial statement, I suggest you post it to RSB and see how many people accept its validity.


I can't say that I've been in agreement with Pro-Player on his stance about aiming systems and that pro's use No aiming system. It might not be the ghost ball, but it's one of the many that are in existence, he just doesn't have a name for it. But in your case, Ron Shepard and Fred Agnir as the supreme authorities in the game of pool? You have GOT to be kidding me! A mechanical engineer and a Ph.D. professional paper writer whose knowledge you stand by? I'd be very surprised if any of your profile information is correct, I think you might be one of them or a RSB lackey that's shilling for their self- professed expertise. Furthermore, NOBODY accepts ANYTHING on RSB so why bother. And although I have no clue who Pro-Player is, I'll put $1,000 up with you and have Pro play either one of them.

.....................drivermaker
Click to expand...

Look, I never called Ron Shepard and Fred Agnir the supreme authorities on pool. There may or may not be higher authoritiese out there, but if there are they are not signing their own names on the internet. Ron and Fred are certainly best at backing up their arguments with factual proof rather than going back to the non argument that "it's the way it is and thats final" like so many experts out there. Fred probably is the supreme authority on knocking wanna be know-it-alls down a notch or two and that is why I was saying I wish he were here.

Did you look at this proof about throw:

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?...0111060534.22de830e@posting.google.com&rnum=1

To me it would not matter if a five year old girl who had never hit a ball in her life came up with this proof. Its a solid proof, any one can do it themselves and repeat the results.

Just so happens that Fred wrote it and probably hundreds of others like it. These are real world proofs on a table, not some theory though mostly it does correspond with Rons theory.

Who are you to knock them? Do you have papers detailing the whole physics of pool? Please send links, I would like to review them.

I don't understand people who knock theory when the theory works in practice. Its retarded to say "your wrong, go knock a 1000 balls in then you will know better". Its obvious from pro-players post that approach doesn't work. In order for him to be potting the balls, his aim has probably been "miscalibrated" in order to work with the reverse thow effect. Who knows what negative effects this will have on his game.

As for doubting my identity, I only registered here cause I saw another couple of Aussies here and wanted to help them out with some local sydney pool scene knowledge, go back and check if you don't believe me.

Seems to me that you are just jellous of their good reputation and have probably posted some stupid stuff to RSB before and been made to look a fool by them.

You would back a player you don't know (who doesn't know which way the ball gets thrown and thinks he can pot 90+ degree shots) $1000. Man do I smell tuna! :D

cheers - 8ballbanger
Click to expand...
 
Joe, i'm not sure what you're asking about the cue ball and 15 object balls, but i do know that the contact point on the cue ball remains constant too, no matter where it is. It is always that point thru the center of the cb that is parallel to the line thru the object ball into the pocket.
 
pro-player said:
I still can't get the WEI table to work, can someone post it up for me?

8ballbanger, have you ever heard of bending balls? If so, please post what you think it is.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested your private life :D
 
Since a good number of us agree with 8BB, I think he should buy us plane tickets to Australia.:D
I do believe the pros use the ghost ball method. But, WHERE they place the ghost ball doesn't necessarily mean it's at the point where it is frozen with the o.b. A very good player showed me his way and I'm not in liberty to explain it. Not that it's any of value to you. :p
But, hell. Pros probabably know how to approach the ob and what it does at that angle of approach.
How else do you explain the wing shots? :D
 
I guess since I have jumped in the deep end with this thread I should at least explain my aiming system only going into the centre ball stuff though for simplicity.

I used to use pure ghost ball and compensate for throw by hitting the shot a little thinner.

However, I have found a slightly more accurate way recently. I was loosing accuracy with the way I was doing it was the "thinner hit" bit. How much thinner eactly? Lot thinner, little thinner, it was some guess work that I thought should be avoided, especially since it was being done while down on the shot making it harder to estimate and throwing my stance slightly off line.

Now while planning my shot, I will look at the general type of shot I will be hitting (angle, speed and spin) and estimate the amount of throw that will occur. Then I will determine the ghost ball location, but not using the pocket as the target, but rather the a theoretical point that compensates for throw. i.e. if I am cutting to the left and there will be mild throw I might aim an inch to the left side of the pocket, judging the distance change to make by the throw angle and distance.

Then when getting down on the shot I can focus on hitting the ball without any adjustments, making the process more accurate.

This has a big advantage over the much touted "feel" system.

One of the problems I see with the "feel" is that it is harder to work with when you are not shooting for the pocket directly. When you use the "feel" system, you build a feel for when you are hitting the pocket and little else.

For example, you want to pocket a long shot, but not directly, there is a ball hanging close to one side of the pocket that you want to disturb, so you decide you want to carome your object ball off it into the pocket. Using the feel system in this situation can often result in missing the carome because your body naturally picks out the best line to sink the ball.

What I am trying to say is that "feel" system is mostly geared towards potting a ball, whereas the adjusted ghost ball method I described, it is geared towards training you to hit an exact point on the ball, giving you the ability to better work with any sort of shot including ones not headed straight for the pocket (combos caromes billiards). The ghost ball is more general purpose than feel alone.

Cheers - 8ballbanger
 
Last edited:
Some much for theory and logic.

Practice, practice, practice is what it boils down to, namely, practising the same exact shot hundreds of times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top