Nearest to farthest -- how bad is it?

Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
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.
 
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...
Isn't this basically cp-to-cp?? Been around since Jesus got his first pair of sandals. ;)
 
This is reminding me of Joe Tucker's "Aiming by the Numbers". But its been at least 10 years since I saw his video on it so I may very well be misremembering.
 
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...
Parallel aiming method would be my answer. You could also use double the distance. CIT would be the limiting factor, if not taken into consideration. Any aiming system has its shortcomings. I tend to believe that playing with an aiming system gets in the way. I think it's best to learn aiming through practice, trial and error. IMO most shots that are missed are not due to bad visual aiming, but something physical broke down. Most likely the stroke was offline. I have seen articles in BD and also on Dr. Dave's web site that remind me of what you are describing.
 
iusedtoberich said:
This is reminding me of Joe Tucker's "Aiming by the Numbers". But its been at least 10 years since I saw his video on it so I may very well be misremembering.
Click to expand...
That's a great system that I have used in practice many times. After a while you don't really think about the numbers. The book, balls and aiming discs and DVD are all high quality and can last a lifetime if taken care of. Joe Tucker is a great teacher.
 
It's got nothing to do with Joe Tucker or parallel aiming. I'm not asking about other systems. I'm asking about the system I described above.

Can anyone figure out how good or bad it is? Did anyone understand my description or should I post a drawing?
 
Bob Jewett said:
It's got nothing to do with Joe Tucker or parallel aiming. I'm not asking about other systems. I'm asking about the system I described above.

Can anyone figure out how good or bad it is? Did anyone understand my description or should I post a drawing?
Click to expand...
I think your description is clear - and doing what you describe would result in a too-fat hit.

pj
chgo
 
Bob Jewett said:
It's got nothing to do with Joe Tucker or parallel aiming. I'm not asking about other systems. I'm asking about the system I described above.

Can anyone figure out how good or bad it is? Did anyone understand my description or should I post a drawing?
Click to expand...

it cant hurt to post a drawing
just sayin
 
bbb said:
it cant hurt to post a drawing
just sayin
Click to expand...

And I'm just saying if you want to understand this sort of question about aiming systems or anything else, it will be better for you to work it out on your own. My description was complete enough, as PJ pointed out.

Try to come up with your own drawing. I'll post a drawing in four days.
 
My initial thought is the other stuff.

I’m headed to the pool room tomorrow and I’ll see if I can implement it in any way shape or form…
 
Last edited:
I tried it on my table with two furniture sliders with a small dot drawn on the perimeter.

For nearly full hits, it pocketed the ball.

For cut shots, it hits the OB too fat, and missed the ball.

The thinner the cut shot, the fatter it hit.
 
Bob Jewett said:
What if the cue ball is close to the object ball --say much closer than the distance to the pocket?
Click to expand...

The accuracy will increase as the distance between the balls decrease. The point on the CB will be closer to the actual CP needed. For a straight in shot it will be the proper CP regardless of distance.

The system needs some corn for texture though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top