Nearest to farthest -- how bad is it?

Bob Jewett said:
Here is an aiming system. Like all aiming systems, it is not perfect. My question is: How bad is it? In particular what is the worst error you will have on common shots? What situations really cause it to break down?

The system is this:

There is a spot on the object ball that is the farthest from the pocket.

There is a spot on the cue ball that is the nearest to the pocket.

Send those two spots directly at each other.

(To clarify what that last sentence means: Join the two points on the two balls by a line. Align your cue stick parallel to that line and through the center of the cue ball. Shoot straight along that line without side spin.)

Extra credit for pointing out which book this system appears in.
Click to expand...

Seems to me a bit tough to do, considering that the spot on the cb is unseen from the player's perspective. And the parallel shift would need to be accurate. But even if those two things could be done well, the system will have you hitting balls too thick most of the time, unless the pocket is a few a feet away. The closer the pocket the more inaccurate the method seems to be.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
And here you are responding to an almost 2 year old post? Digging deep, huh? I guarantee in that empty skull of yours there is NOTHING concerning CTE since nothing was never in-putted. Not very much of anything else either. FYI, today is 7-27-22.
Click to expand...
I have a recording of Stan explaining just aspect of CTE that I play at bedtime. It puts me to sleep in a matter of minutes before he even gets down on the cue ball. zzzzzzzzzzzzz 🥱 🥱 😴
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here is an aiming system. Like all aiming systems, it is not perfect. My question is: How bad is it? In particular what is the worst error you will have on common shots? What situations really cause it to break down?

The system is this:

There is a spot on the object ball that is the farthest from the pocket.

There is a spot on the cue ball that is the nearest to the pocket.

Send those two spots directly at each other.

(To clarify what that last sentence means: Join the two points on the two balls by a line. Align your cue stick parallel to that line and through the center of the cue ball. Shoot straight along that line without side spin.)

Extra credit for pointing out which book this system appears in.
Click to expand...
I think the most challenging part of this system would be that it doesn't provide a clear perceptual (like a half ball hit does) way of aligning these two spots. In other words, the more the cut, the harder the alignment of these two specific spots without some other type of intervening visual/perceptual cue. Straight in makes sense because I can easily visually align those two spots, but the farther you move away from a clear visual the lower the consistency of this system because of the perceptual challenge to the shooter.
 
The-Professor said:
I think the most challenging part of this system would be that it doesn't provide a clear perceptual (like a half ball hit does) way of aligning these two spots. In other words, the more the cut, the harder the alignment of these two specific spots without some other type of intervening visual/perceptual cue. Straight in makes sense because I can easily visually align those two spots, but the farther you move away from a clear visual the lower the consistency of this system because of the perceptual challenge to the shooter.
Click to expand...
If you wanted to implement this system, here is how you might visualize it. You can see the point on the cue ball that is farthest from the pocket, and the nearest point is symmetrical about the center. If you can get to either of the cue stick lines shown, you "just" have to do a parallel shift to the center of the cue ball.

But as mentioned above, the system gives bad answers.

CropperCapture[56].png
 
Bob Jewett said:
If you wanted to implement this system, here is how you might visualize it. You can see the point on the cue ball that is farthest from the pocket, and the nearest point is symmetrical about the center. If you can get to either of the cue stick lines shown, you "just" have to do a parallel shift to the center of the cue ball.

But as mentioned above, the system gives bad answers.

View attachment 654065
Click to expand...
Does ANYONE actually go thru shit like this to play pool??? I'd rather gargle with battery acid.
 
garczar said:
Does ANYONE actually go thru shit like this to play pool??? I'd rather gargle with battery acid.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Some people simply can't trust their experience to put the ball in the hole. I know one player who measured out each angle in handspans from the CB line to the OB line. He did kind of an inchworm across the table. We all called it the "itsy-bitsy-spider" method.

Here's an instructional video....

 
Last edited:
Here's Bob's drawing comparing the two aiming methods being discussed, showing how far off Mensabaum's (black lines) is from actual (red lines).

The principal to remember is that the OB's path is always parallel to the "contact point line" through the CB - the red lines (geometrically correct method) show the OB driven into the pocket; the black lines (geometrically incorrect method) show the OB driven into the rail. The balls can only physically connect the way the "parallel lines" aiming method works.

Yes, it's possible to make the necessary aim adjustment subconsciously, but that's limited and doesn't teach you anything that can be applied to a wider range of shots.

pj
chgo
Blank (2).png
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
For what kind of shot is the hit the most too full?
Click to expand...
Without drawing it out...the kind of shot would be a 'Spot Shot'. In One Pocket, shooting from in the corner and making the object ball in the corner on the same side of the table. Oooops, that would be the least too full.
 
Last edited:
Tennesseejoe said:
Without drawing it out...the kind of shot would be a 'Spot Shot'. In One Pocket, shooting from in the corner and making the object ball in the corner on the same side of the table. Oooops, that would be the least too full.
Click to expand...
If it is a thin cut -- like 80 degrees -- and the object ball is close to the pocket and the cue ball is at the other end of the table, the nearest/farthest aiming system says to hit the object ball roughly half ball. What you want in that situation is to hit about 2mm of the object ball.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here is an aiming system. Like all aiming systems, it is not perfect. My question is: How bad is it? In particular what is the worst error you will have on common shots? What situations really cause it to break down?

The system is this:

There is a spot on the object ball that is the farthest from the pocket.

There is a spot on the cue ball that is the nearest to the pocket.

Send those two spots directly at each other.

(To clarify what that last sentence means: Join the two points on the two balls by a line. Align your cue stick parallel to that line and through the center of the cue ball. Shoot straight along that line without side spin.)

Extra credit for pointing out which book this system appears in.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The aiming point and contact point are not one and the same. Unless it’s a straight in or extremely thin cut my point of aim is slightly inside the contact point. Your attempting to make contact with two spherical objects. One your standing be hind and the other (object ball) in your view. I believe that there Is an illusion of what is aiming point versus contact point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top