Jimmy Reid's aiming method
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
Neil said:
Yes this is a good method for CB and OB that are close to each other. I have a parallax problem on far shots so I just take the distance from the center of the OB to the contact point and aim at a location that is the/that same distance away from the contact point or doubling the original distance from the center of the OB.
This to me gives the same results without the parallax problems that I have. I also have a problem using the ghost ball system - sometimes the ghost ball is too small or too large :smile:
Matt_24 said:
That's quite a tall order, IMHO.
If I set up a shot and plan to use english on the shot, depending on how I stroke the cue ball and the speed of the shot, the cue ball will squirt according to the characteristics of my cue with that amount of english. So far, so good. That's pretty straightforward. However, the degree of swerve going across the cloth will vary depending on the speed of the shot, the slowness of the cloth, the humidity level at the moment and so on. Then, add in the throw on the object ball that will occur depending on the speed and quantity of spin on the shot.
Switch cueballs and recalibrate.
My point with this post is that while it's possible to know how to aim in a general sense when shooting with english, at a certain moment all the variables will bite you if you don't add in an unquantifiable element called feel.
Feel must be developed, an' that ain't easy.
Flex
Neil said:
It's an old method, as old as ghost ball - nobody alive today invented it. It's called lots of different things: "double overlap", "double the distance", etc. It's also mentioned frequently here on AZB (I've mentioned it myself several times).
Like ghost ball it's "geometrically correct", meaning if you can follow the directions exactly you'll line up exactly right to hit the OB contact point (unadjusted for throw), just like ghost ball. But just like ghost ball and any other system, it takes some "feel" to line up exactly right - you have to:
- estimate where the OB contact point is,
- estimate where the OB center is,
- estimate how far double that distance is,
- estimate where the CB center is,
- estimate when your stick, CB center and the target are aligned, and
- do all this with your head above everything and with the stick, CB and OB at different distances from your eyes.
In other words, even though this is a "theoretically perfect" system, it still requires imperfect human abilities to make it work.
By the way, you can also double the distance from the OB's edge instead of its center, and then aim the CB edge instead of the CB center at the target. It works the same either way - measuring from the edge is easier for thinner cuts and measuring from the center is easier for fatter hits. Aiming from the edge has the added advantage that you don't have to estimate where the centers of both balls are (because you're using their edges instead).
Joe Tucker's system isn't the same as this, although it's very similar in its working principles. Joe's system numbers all the points around the CB and OB equator so matching numbers = matching contact points. You still have to estimate how to make them come together.
pj
chgo
I don't think any one person can take credit for this system. I actually thought of it myself when I was practicing once, so I asked someone else if they ever tried this and, as soon as I said it, they responded with, "oh yeah, it's called 'equal parts'", or something like that. Since then, I've heard it referred to as a few different names, although all of them seem to escape me right now. 
I don't get it, I mean I REALLY don't get it. Can someone come up with a diagram please? I got the first part but the "double this" and "take the same distance but reverse it" has me lost.
Help!?!?!?!
Help!?!?!?!
I believe this is called "exact opposite equal". I think this is what Jimmy called it on one of his tapes. Joe Tucker does the same thing, but with numbers on his training balls. With Joe's system you get a cue ball and object ball, both with numbers around the circumference of the balls. You match up the numbers to find the aim point.
Fart sniffer said:
You basically just hit the object ball with the equal (but opposite) part of the cue ball. For example, if you're hitting 1/8th of the object ball on the left-hand side, then you would aim to hit it with 1/8th of the cue ball on the right-hand side.
I can't diagram it. I'm Wei illiterate. I just learned how to make multiple pages recently and that's as far as my abilities go on the Wei table.
Ahh, never mind. I think you're asking about the "double this" stuff. I don't get it either. I'm not sure what is being doubled.
Exactly, I understand the correlation of contact point on the object ball and the cue ball but a couple people mentioned distances between the balls and taking THAT measurement and.................doing something with it.
Fart sniffer said:
Your wish is my command.
This clip from the cuetable.com "Aiming Calculator" shows the CB and OB overlapped for a half-ball hit (30-degree cut). The red X in the middle of the overlap is where the contact point is. You can see that the contact point is dead center between the centers of the two balls and between their edges. Simple geometry dictates that the contact point ends up dead center in the overlap no matter what the cut angle is.
So in this case you'd estimate the contact point (for a 30-degree cut it's exactly halfway from the OB center to its edge), then either:
1. double that distance from the OB's center and aim the CB's center at that doubled distance (at the OB's edge in this case)
OR
2. double that distance from the OB's edge and aim the CB's edge at that doubled distance (at the OB's center in this case).
You can go to Wei's Aiming Calculator (here) to try different cut angles and see the overlap change and the X remain centered as you change things.
pj
chgo
Attachments
Last edited:
Thank you thank you thank you!!
Let me see if I got this right, you take the distance from the center of the OB and the contact point, double it and THAT will be where you line up the center of the CB?
I have been re-reading your posts (for the uku-billionth time) and realized we are now saying the same things, they are just worded differently or in a different order. Man that should really help out a lot on the thinner cuts which I have been having an issue with lately, thank you very much for the help!!
Going to practice straight pool with Thorsten tonight and will try this new technique out, thanks again.
Let me see if I got this right, you take the distance from the center of the OB and the contact point, double it and THAT will be where you line up the center of the CB?
I have been re-reading your posts (for the uku-billionth time) and realized we are now saying the same things, they are just worded differently or in a different order. Man that should really help out a lot on the thinner cuts which I have been having an issue with lately, thank you very much for the help!!
Going to practice straight pool with Thorsten tonight and will try this new technique out, thanks again.
Fart sniffer said:
You got it.
Or you can take the distance from the edge of the OB and the contact point, double it and that will be where you line up the edge of the CB.
I think this technique is most useful for thinner cuts, but it's easiest to use the edges for these (because the contact point is closer to the edge for thin cuts).
Good luck with Thorsten.
pj
chgo
Poor aiming system
If you have to compensate for side spin, you are guessing most of the time. There are systems that you do not have to compensate
If you have to compensate for side spin, you are guessing most of the time. There are systems that you do not have to compensate
Seneca Steve said:
Such as?
pj
chgo