Nearest to farthest -- how bad is it?

[BC21]

.......

The biggest flaw with the system you described is that the harder to visualize the shot the worse this system is. Which is the opposite of useful.

This is so true. Plus it's not accuarte. Even it were accurate, any system that isn't easy to visualize is surely not going to be easy to implement. Of course, after several thousand shots you'll think you're visualizing the system better, but your success will be due to rote, hours upon hours of trial and error, not the system itself.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

It will increase the angle accuracy but I'm not sure it will decrease how many inches you miss the pocket by. I haven't worked that out yet. (And maybe it's not worth working on.)

Don't bother, the system will never fit in a Shinola can.

 

[Kdogster]

Mosconi system

Line A and line B are parallel and go through the centers of their respective balls. Sending green to red is the same system shown in Mosconi's second book and in Byrne, and in .... It sends contact point towards contact point.

I think Mosconi's system is the shinola, because I can say that it can be applied in a practical way at the table, and you don't need to whip out a protractor during the game to make it work.

During the pandemic, I've been spending a lot of time at my home table working on aiming. I sort of organically arrived at the Mosconi system, because I needed a way to see a cut shot in a repeatable way. Yes, one can sort of get a feel for a particular cut shot and practice that feeling enough to cement it, but that's not going to be practical system unless you have oodles of time to play.

Rather than relying on feel, I think the reference points/lines can be seen while you are down on the shot. So, for example, with the 75 degree shot, I have been training myself to visualize the line made by the outside edge of CB intersecting with outside edge of OB in such a way that it sends the OB towards the heart of the pocket.

Here's my aiming routine:

1. 
   [1] imprint the path from OB to heart of pocket in my mind.
   [2] while standing figure out the rough line of the shot by seeing the edges intersect in your head. Once you have the cue line, build your foot work around the cue to get down on the shot.
   [3] while down on the shot, make the micro adjustments. It takes practice to see the outside edge of CB intersect with OB outside edge. You also need to factor in CIT, so you may need to over cut the angle or apply a touch of outside. All of this is done during the micro adjustments. Obviously, you'd have to adjust for left/right english,etc.
   [4] shoot and make it

Observations

• 
  [1] The system works great for cut shots of 30 degrees or more. Less than 30 degrees and it becomes hard to see the edges intersecting in your mind. However, these smaller angle cut shots should be easier to shoot by just feeling the amount of overlap needed to send the OB down the path to heart of pocket. I've also been experimenting with using the CB center (looking at the crest of the ball down on the shot) as a reference point to intersect with OB outside edge.
  [2] The micro adjustments take a ton of concentration. Seeing these lines intersect forces your brain to focus in a different way than you would if you're using a quarter ball system. Early on, after practicing hard for a half hour, my brain would be tired. Now that I've trained myself, I can see the lines intersecting very easily.
  [3] I find seeing the edge on rail shots is quite difficult. Also, when it's a darker ball like the 8 ball, it's not easy to see the edge especially at long distance. I try to sense the edge when it's too hard to see it. This is easier said than done.

I know this. Aiming is hard. Having a system gives you some level of confidence.

 

[UnintendedEnglish]

Hi,Bob. I'm Matt's Dad from Draw.

I've seen this 'system'. It's a method, really, and even though it's geometry is theoretically flawed (as compared to the much more theoretically correct parallel aiming), it actually, when taken to the table, it works. This is the method I teach my daughter who plays infrequently and lacks the obsessive 'drive to understand' that seems to be a requirement for membership on this forum. I don't mean to sound too snarky because I love pool and truthfully am suffering mightily during this virus lockdown.

I think the reason this method pockets balls is because the object ball - always farther away from the shooter than the cue ball - the object ball looks/appears smaller. (Imagine a cue ball being aimed at a snooker ball). This visual distortion self corrects for this method's geometrical tendency to hit the shot thick.

Going out on an extremely thin limb here....I think this same visual distortion biases people against understanding CTE. In my use of CTE, I forget about angle degrees. In CTE, if CB-OB are close together, a 30* shot angle might require a 45* CTE solution, whereas a 30* shot angle where the CB-OB are far apart (as in a table length shot) might want a 15* CTE solution to pocket the ball.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think the reason this method pockets balls is because the object ball - always farther away from the shooter than the cue ball - the object ball looks/appears smaller.

Aiming a point on the CB at a point on the OB - the apparent size difference of the balls shouldn't affect that visual line.

pj
chgo

 

[sixpack]

Aiming a point on the CB at a point on the OB - the apparent size difference of the balls shouldn't affect that visual line.

pj
chgo

I agree with you on paper. But visually if you are 'feeling' it instead of measuring it a lot of cool things can happen.

 

[sixpack]

Hi,Bob. I'm Matt's Dad from Draw.

I've seen this 'system'. It's a method, really, and even though it's geometry is theoretically flawed (as compared to the much more theoretically correct parallel aiming), it actually, when taken to the table, it works. This is the method I teach my daughter who plays infrequently and lacks the obsessive 'drive to understand' that seems to be a requirement for membership on this forum. I don't mean to sound too snarky because I love pool and truthfully am suffering mightily during this virus lockdown.

I think the reason this method pockets balls is because the object ball - always farther away from the shooter than the cue ball - the object ball looks/appears smaller. (Imagine a cue ball being aimed at a snooker ball). This visual distortion self corrects for this method's geometrical tendency to hit the shot thick.

Going out on an extremely thin limb here....I think this same visual distortion biases people against understanding CTE. In my use of CTE, I forget about angle degrees. In CTE, if CB-OB are close together, a 30* shot angle might require a 45* CTE solution, whereas a 30* shot angle where the CB-OB are far apart (as in a table length shot) might want a 15* CTE solution to pocket the ball.

Nic post! I agree with most of it. Not sure the system will work for me because I already know the flaw, but using it as a visual aid it probably works well.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I think the reason this method pockets balls is because the object ball - always farther away from the shooter than the cue ball - the object ball looks/appears smaller. (Imagine a cue ball being aimed at a snooker ball). This visual distortion self corrects for this method's geometrical tendency to hit the shot thick....

Please review my thought experiment above. If you see what's going on there, I think it will be clear that this paragraph makes no sense.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Has anyone actually said this pockets balls? Its off by a mile, literally. A 1 foot cut shot misses by 2 diamonds.

 

[Bob Jewett]

And my view of why this system might work for some people is that it is so far from reality that it allows the subconscious to take over.

The best that can be said for the system is that it will get the shooter to hit the object ball on the correct side. I have seen one person who had trouble at that level.

I think it is a mistake to teach this system to anyone. If they get control of where the cue ball is going well enough to send it along the line they choose, and they apply the system as described, the system will force them to miss shots.

Here is the system as published:



What is interesting is that the author never mentions this in the text, not even as a pointer to the illustration. In his other discussion of aiming, he gives geometrically correct (ignoring friction) advice.

In the diagram the cut is almost 90 and the advice will get a cut more like 60 degrees.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Not sure the system will work for me because I already know the flaw...

Why even think about using a flawed system? Why not use one of the many correct ones?

 

[Kdogster]

Looking at the diagram again, I didn’t notice that they are defining a contact point on the CB based on the target pocket. That makes no sense to me and you couldn’t even apply it practically at the table. My aiming method is simply thinking about a line emanating from the extreme outside edge of CB (I.e. where the full girth of CB is running parallel to direction of stick). You can use this line as a reference to make the shot.

Does the diagram represent the Mosconi system? If so, that is bunk.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Does the diagram represent the Mosconi system? If so, that is bunk.

No. (If you are a student of pool and you don't already have all three of Willie Mosconi's books, perhaps you should.)

I have described Mosconi's system above. I will start a separate thread for it since it doesn't really belong in this thread.

Robert Byrne describes and illustrates Mosconi's system in his "Standard" book which every pool student should also have.

 

[Kdogster]

Thank you, Bob for the suggestions. I look forward to reading these!

 

[BC21]

Why even think about using a flawed system? Why not use one of the many correct ones?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Robert.Beak]

Why even think about using a flawed system? Why not use one of the many correct ones?

I agree and disagree
I constantly cook an omelet according to one recipe and every time it is delicious, but when I started experimenting, I immediately found several more types of omelet
sometimes it is lush, sometimes it is crispy and so on
so here, you are trying to find new ways to discover something new, to make the game more interesting, to have an "efficiency"

 

[Bob Jewett]

I agree and disagree
I constantly cook an omelet according to one recipe and every time it is delicious, but when I started experimenting, I immediately found several more types of omelet
sometimes it is lush, sometimes it is crispy and so on
so here, you are trying to find new ways to discover something new, to make the game more interesting, to have an "efficiency"

Have you ever tried using broken glass instead of salt and pepper in your omelette? How about library paste instead of cheese?

Sometimes common sense or even an understanding of geometry steps in and gives guidance.

Did you follow the analysis of the system?

 

[Bob Jewett]

And my view of why this system might work for some people is that it is so far from reality that it allows the subconscious to take over.

The best that can be said for the system is that it will get the shooter to hit the object ball on the correct side. I have seen one person who had trouble at that level.

I think it is a mistake to teach this system to anyone. If they get control of where the cue ball is going well enough to send it along the line they choose, and they apply the system as described, the system will force them to miss shots.

Here is the system as published:

View attachment 553626

What is interesting is that the author never mentions this in the text, not even as a pointer to the illustration. In his other discussion of aiming, he gives geometrically correct (ignoring friction) advice.

In the diagram the cut is almost 90 and the advice will get a cut more like 60 degrees.

Evidently no one here has the book this system comes from. It is in Hal Mix's book:



The book is pretty good other than this horrible clinker and as I mentioned the other aiming stuff in the book is reasonable. I have no idea why this singular diagram was included.

 

[Brookeland Bill]

Have you ever tried using broken glass instead of salt and pepper in your omelette? How about library paste instead of cheese?

Sometimes common sense or even an understanding of geometry steps in and gives guidance.

Did you follow the analysis of the system?

A sense of geometry? Come on Bob. Think about your audience!

I’ve always considered sitting down and applying plane geometry to playing pool but just never took the time. I’m too busy trying to wash and erase all thoughts of CTE from my psyche.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

A sense of geometry? Come on Bob. Think about your audience!

I’ve always considered sitting down and applying plane geometry to playing pool but just never took the time. I’m too busy trying to wash and erase all thoughts of CTE from my psyche.

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.