HOLY CRAP!!! THIS IS SERIOUS! You actually sent me 5.00!!!Chi2dxa said:
Way too kind! I was kidding about the paypal thing! Please, do not be offended when I reject it. I cannot accept this. I really do appreciate the offer tho.
JV
Johnny V aiming system... The Clock
- Thread starter Billiard Architect
- Start date
Way too kind! I was kidding about the paypal thing! Please, do not be offended when I reject it. I cannot accept this. I really do appreciate the offer tho.
JV
I have been up all night working on cut shots (They have been the Bully in my playground for some time now). I must have made a couple of 1000 of them and mostly by feel. This is nerve racking because you end up hitting them 1 way for inside english and another way for outside english which is a totally different spot on the cb. Now all I have to do is use your clock system and I can use what ever english I want. The answer was the clock systems all along (Buddy Halls and Danny Basavich for coming of the rails and now yours for target to the pocket). Hey screw that ghost ball crap!!! And fractional aming was not the cureall for me either. Now I know that there are going to be some situations that I will not be able to use your system with but I can deal with them in my own way (using Hal's banking system which really, really works) and once I get back in line it will be your clock system. I am very grateful that you came up with this and others have added and enhanced what you started. So thanks again.Johnny "V" said:
Pii said:
I think this is a very good question. You're not the only one who can aim without a system. Most people can aim pretty well without one and play at a decent level. I never used a system for the first 15 years of my development -- and did well in a lot of matches and tournaments.
Systems are good for two reasons:
1) People people who "just can't see it."
2) They help advanced players more by eliminating variation.
I can only speak intelligently with center-to-edge or 90/90. What systems like that do is eliminate variation in your pre-shot routine and setup. When you eliminate variation, you eliminate misses over time. I even use a system for dead-straight-in shots. Many would probably say, "why???" The answer is because I'm making that shot in the exact same way as I would for a 60-degree break shot in straight pool when I'm on a big run. Everything is the same. Your aim, your approach, your setup and execution.
No matter how well you aim with feel, you have excess variation in how you approach different shots because you're probably not using definitive reference points. What I mean by definitive is ..... points that can be seen, and not estimated.
When you master a system, mentally, making the ball is no longer a concern. When you're practice stroking, you're doing so to tune-in your speed, not to fine-tune pocketing the ball. Notice I'm not trying to start a Houle/Vitello aim war--- I'll say ANY system. That's why, in my opinion, a system is important. Practice stroke for position, not to make the ball. Just my humble opinion.
Maybe a book is in order. I have a couple of others that I am working on. So who would be interested in a book from someone that is not a professional but thinks about pool all the time?
BTW if you would like to fund such a project please visit my website and click on the ads on the google banner and use the ozone billiards ad. It won't cost you anything and I promise to use the funds to bind the book thru lulu.
What do you all think?
BTW if you would like to fund such a project please visit my website and click on the ads on the google banner and use the ozone billiards ad. It won't cost you anything and I promise to use the funds to bind the book thru lulu.
What do you all think?
This method has been described before. It may give a beginner an idea of where to aim the cueball, but the error it produces makes it rather useless for a more advanced player. The error comes from equating cut angles with impact angles.Johnny "V" said:
The "impact angle" is the desired object ball direction measured from the line joining the centers of the CB and OB in their pre-shot resting positions. The "cut angle" is the desired object ball direction measured from the pre-impact CB aim direction. The difference between them increases with cut angle and inversely with the distance between the balls.
Consider desired impact angles of 30, 45 and 60 degrees as examples (1:00, 1:30, and 2:00 in this system). With a CB-OB distance of 10 ball diameters between centers (22.5"), actually aiming such that the "V" is at 1:00, 1:30, and 2:00 (ie, taking the 'cut angles' to be 30, 45 and 60 degrees), generates errors in the OB's direction of 3.1, 4.4, and 5.2 degrees, respectively. If the CB-OB distance is 6 ball diameters (13.5"), the errors are now 5.6, 7.6 and 8.9 degrees!
When you add the fact that there are also errors produced in determining the the location of the "V" in the first place, and these will add positively to the system's intrinsic errors roughly half the time (unless you have a built in perceptual bias), it's not really that helpful a system for more experienced players, imo.
Jim
Thanks.
Another way to correlate a cut angle to a point on the OB - then translate the same corresponding point on the CB before the hit.
This will work on close shots but on long shots there will be a parallax problem with the CB appearing larger than the OB.
I like PJ's picture for I double the distance from the center of the OB to the contact point (where your idea helps determine) at the equator of the OB toward the outside as the point to aim at.
Another way to correlate a cut angle to a point on the OB - then translate the same corresponding point on the CB before the hit.
This will work on close shots but on long shots there will be a parallax problem with the CB appearing larger than the OB.
I like PJ's picture for I double the distance from the center of the OB to the contact point (where your idea helps determine) at the equator of the OB toward the outside as the point to aim at.
If you line up 2 spheres with the v intersection @ 11 o'clock it does not matter how far away the centers are. As long as your dominant eye is in line with the v you are looking @ a 2 dimensional representation of the shot.Jal said:
If what you are saying is true then if I am shooting the 11 o'clock shot (30 degree cut to the right) then I have to aim differently if it is 6 inches away or 13 inches away or 2 inches away?
I disagree...
Johnny "V" said:
Is he saying the OB gets "smaller" as you get further away--- is that where the error % comes in? Since the discs are not the same size?
Never thought I would see you pop in.halhoule said:
You guys are making this way too difficult.
This is just a way to visualize the position of a ghost ball by using a familiar (clock) image to assist. It's especially helpful for a new player who doesn't really understand how the interaction of balls determines the object ball's direction of travel.
There's no size difference to complicate things, because you imagine the clock face over the ghost ball at its point of impact with the object ball, not at the cueball's point of origin. Same thing for there being no parallax problem because, again, you imagine the cueball at the point of impact with the object ball, not the point of origin.
John, there are already at least 3 "clock" systems that I am familiar with in pool and 3c. Why not call this the "time system" instead?
This is just a way to visualize the position of a ghost ball by using a familiar (clock) image to assist. It's especially helpful for a new player who doesn't really understand how the interaction of balls determines the object ball's direction of travel.
There's no size difference to complicate things, because you imagine the clock face over the ghost ball at its point of impact with the object ball, not at the cueball's point of origin. Same thing for there being no parallax problem because, again, you imagine the cueball at the point of impact with the object ball, not the point of origin.
John, there are already at least 3 "clock" systems that I am familiar with in pool and 3c. Why not call this the "time system" instead?
The example errors I gave are not the result of any problem with perceiving the overlap in two dimensions, ie, adjusting to the fact that the cueball is closer to you than the object ball. It has to do with the difference between impact angle versus cut angle, as indicated. I can't present a diagram at the moment (might be able to later), but you might want to look at their definitions again. Essentially, the cut angle for a specific desired OB direction (fixed impact angle) is different depending on how close the two balls are to each other. Your system equates cut angle with impact angle, which is only true, technically speaking, if the balls are an infinite distance apart.Johnny "V" said:
Absolutely. In fact, if the balls are that close (6" or less), the errors are much greater than I indicated.Johnny "V" said:
Jim
Johnny V - I haven't had a chance to try this yet but it looks pretty good. I am playing a small tourney tonight and if I get to one of those shots that I am not confident in shooting I am going to try your method and if it works you better accept half of the prize money!
This is easily corrected (for all CB-OB distances) by using the ghost CB rather than the OB as the "center of the clockface" when estimating the angle - like this:
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Hi guys, late to the party again...
Great system Johnny V!
I want to mention that Da Poet has posted this system before, although you bring a nice contribution with the visualization of the clock face. see post #42 here.
I personally have a lot of trouble seeing the overlap point on the ball, but I am working on a similar system where you can aim the center of the CB at the clock face and get various cut angles up to half ball. It isn't complete because it doesn't give you all the cut angles.
Jon
Great system Johnny V!
I want to mention that Da Poet has posted this system before, although you bring a nice contribution with the visualization of the clock face. see post #42 here.
I personally have a lot of trouble seeing the overlap point on the ball, but I am working on a similar system where you can aim the center of the CB at the clock face and get various cut angles up to half ball. It isn't complete because it doesn't give you all the cut angles.
Jon
Looks like everyone was headed in the right direction and someone even mentions that there might be a corolation between the green point (the V) and trajectory but then it looks like it was dropped because they were talking about fractional aiming and being able to see where the aim was.jondrums said:
Jal,Jal said:
the basis of how the cueball lines up with the object ball so that the V is formed is a straight line. Whether you are 1 inch away or 100 inches away. You are looking down the path of the cueball. I may be wrong but I am assuming that you are thinking that you line up the cueball and the object ball centers then adjust. If that was the case then yes you would have a problem with the two angles. As PJ's diagram shows if the cueball is on diamond 1, 2, 3 etc it is still traveling the same line thus contacting the object ball at the same point. even if it was 1/2 inch away the line is the same.
If you look at the 6- 12:00 O'clock aim line in PJ's diagram (post 54) especially where it extends to the foot rail, this is how I aim. Jonny V's clock face makes it easier to estimate the angle given that we are all used to clock faces anyway.
It seems to enhance the ghost ball with an added reference point at the "V." I think that the mind gets used to estimating the front of the CB contact point on the OB. Whether we realize (and are able to verbalize) it or not, this is what the "feel" players are doing. It is about lining up the contact points and Johnny V has a good addition for determining the aim line.
As shown in PJ's diagram there is a horizontal (laid on the table) and a vertical clock face that can be used. In my thinking the mind already knows how to use the segments in a clock face and this addition can be easily incorporated into the aim process.
I also like the idea that one can visualize the clock hand as pointing through the OB to the pocket. This too helps to establish the contact point location at the back of the OB. The player needs to visualize this contact point and aim line through the OB as a thin line such as a piece of string or thread.
When it is all said and done it is one way to translate verbal discourse into visualizations the mind can quickly assimilate. It is intuitively and physically appealing.
I think of it as " Johnny V's aiming method," he deserves the credit for such a good idea.
One can start with the "V" and then rotate the visualization to the horizontal for the exact aim points
It seems to enhance the ghost ball with an added reference point at the "V." I think that the mind gets used to estimating the front of the CB contact point on the OB. Whether we realize (and are able to verbalize) it or not, this is what the "feel" players are doing. It is about lining up the contact points and Johnny V has a good addition for determining the aim line.
As shown in PJ's diagram there is a horizontal (laid on the table) and a vertical clock face that can be used. In my thinking the mind already knows how to use the segments in a clock face and this addition can be easily incorporated into the aim process.
I also like the idea that one can visualize the clock hand as pointing through the OB to the pocket. This too helps to establish the contact point location at the back of the OB. The player needs to visualize this contact point and aim line through the OB as a thin line such as a piece of string or thread.
When it is all said and done it is one way to translate verbal discourse into visualizations the mind can quickly assimilate. It is intuitively and physically appealing.
I think of it as " Johnny V's aiming method," he deserves the credit for such a good idea.
One can start with the "V" and then rotate the visualization to the horizontal for the exact aim points
Last edited:
Johnny "V" said:
Jim's talking about the difference between using the OB or the ghost CB as the "vertex" (point of intersection) of the cut angle that you estimate from above. It makes a difference in the angle you estimate (a bigger difference the closer the CB is to the OB). The accurate (but slightly harder to visualize) way is to use the ghost CB as the angle's vertex.
Here's an illustration. The blue line shows the incorrect angle you estimate if you use the OB as the vertex (the same angle - about 45 degrees - no matter what distance the CB is from the OB). The two red lines show the correct angles you estimate from the two different distances if you use the ghost CB (the grey ball) as the vertex. Notice that the incorrect angle gets farther from the correct angle the closer the CB gets to the OB - in this example for the farther CB, instead of 45 degrees you get about 60 degrees, but for the closer CB, instead of 45 degrees you get about 90 degrees.
In other words, if you use the OB instead of the ghost CB as the vertex when you estimate the cut angle you'll hit the shot too full - by a greater and greater amount the closer the CB is to the OB.
pj
chgo
Last edited: