New Aiming System!

[Patrick Johnson]

the right and left edges of the CB at 3 and 9 o'clock are equidistant from the NCP

This may be the source of your confusion. The two edges of the CB are not the edges that the contact target (NCP) must be centered between. The contact target must be centered between one edge of the CB and the opposite edge of the OB.

Centering the contact target between the edges of the CB only is simply another way of saying "aim the CB's center at the contact target". As you pointed out, because of the roundness of the balls this will not result in contacting the contact target (except on straight-in shots).

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... You state that the CP and the aiming point are different except for straight in shots.

Why is that?

Because aiming the CB's center at the contact target (NCP or CP, whichever) means the CB cannot hit the contact target except for straight-in shots. In your next post you acknowledge this is true but then contradict it in the next sentence:

We know that by aiming in that way, the center of the CB (as viewed from the shooter's perspective) will NOT contact the CP...because the balls are round!

But that is irrelevant because if aimed as suggested above the CORRECT point of the CB WILL impact the NCP

The two phrases in blue above may be another cause of your misunderstanding. You've described only one way of aiming (aiming the CB's center at the contact target), not two.

pj
chgo

 

[Angle Detective]

We know that by aiming in that way, the center of the CB (as viewed from the shooter's perspective) will NOT contact the CP...because the balls are round!

But that is irrelevant because if aimed as suggested above the CORRECT point of the CB WILL impact the NCP

Jim, thanks for being as descriptive as you were. I do happen to agree with Patrick here. It's the above quote that makes me realize that what you think happens at impact is different than what we think. I will set up the shot you suggest when I get to the table today and let you know how I faired, and as I suggested in my thread on the aiming system I wrote about a few weeks ago, I do think you have something valuable, under certain circumstances, with your "lining up to diamonds" method. But this is about clarifying the actual geometry for me. The shots may go, but "why" is the concern here.

So just to clarify why I think we're not seeing eye to eye on this point, from your statement above, I believe that although you acknowledge that both balls' roundness precludes the center of the cueball from striking the object ball's contact point, you don't and should acknowledge that the balls' roundness actually precludes the "correct point" of the cueball from striking the object ball's contact point as well. The "correct point" of the cueball will not strike whatever contact point you are trying to contact if you are aiming the center of the cueball "directly at" that intended contact point. The only time the direct aim and the contact point coincide is on a straight shot.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

 

[av84fun]

Thanks to both Jeff and Patrick.

Jeff, when you take this to the table, you will see that the essence of the method is exactly correct...although my attempts to explain it textually may be lacking.

Oooops. This just in. The center of the pocket doesn't know how wide the points are!!

So, the NCP that works on MY table won't necessarily work on other tables.

Therefore, when you take this to the table, if the hit is too thick or thin, just adjust the NCP to aim to the left or right of the right pocket point...most likely to the right of it.

Also, be sure to use the 12 o'clock center to aim with...not the equatorial center....center ball tip contact...and have the cue directly under your chin.

Finally, as I have ALWAYS said when discussing aiming systems, we must use our eyes and not protractors to shoot pool and there are MANY complexities related to vision that cause people to see things differently.

Put a pencil into a glass of water at an angle and the submerged portion will NOT be where you SEE it.

So, all I can say...and all I have ever said, is that the methods I describe here work for ME. And also, casting humility to the wind...with all my failings of knowledge, practice time and age, I can hang with any shortstop and plenty of touring pros as a shotmaker and if that was not the case, I wouldn't post any suggestions.

It is NOT happening in this thread and I am ENJOYING this dialog but on occasion, in the past, when a few have told me that I am just simply wrong...it made blue smoke shoot out of my ears at high velocities because it was not wrong FOR ME!!!

(-:

Jim

 

[Angle Detective]

Jim, you'd probably whip my butt if we played. Your system works well for you, and I'm still inconsistent as a shotmaker, and still searching for something that works well for me.

I wish I could say that the shot you suggested that I set up went in the pocket. But it did as I expected it to do; it came up short the three times I tried it. The reason seems obvious to me, but then again I've been wrong enough times in my life to never bet the farm.

Why this works for you, I would suggest, is that you have an ingrained yet quite effective compensation that allows you to line up the contact point with the top center of the cueball but send the cueball elsewhere. I wouldn't doubt that many people do this with success. In fact, if you are capable of compensating like this consistently, it really simplifies things. No need for an aiming system at all. Just find the contact point and you're off. I think your subconscious takes over and simply doubles the distance for you. More power to you.

I know it can be frustrating explaining things that people just don't get. I do believe I get what you're describing. It just doesn't work for me because I haven't ingrained the compensation. I'm always looking for a system with an exact place to send the center of the cueball without any compensation. But if you can allow your instincts to take over and do the work for you, I think you may be better off than if you were overthinking the process.

Of course, I may be wrong about this compensation. Do you think after my previous posts showing the different lines toward contact point and aiming point that it's possible you're stroking somewhere other than where you're aiming? It's the only thing I can come up with that would make sense to me if you're aiming your rifle directly at the object ball contact/collision point.

Thanks

 

[av84fun]

Jim, you'd probably whip my butt if we played. Your system works well for you, and I'm still inconsistent as a shotmaker, and still searching for something that works well for me.

I wish I could say that the shot you suggested that I set up went in the pocket. But it did as I expected it to do; it came up short the three times I tried it. The reason seems obvious to me, but then again I've been wrong enough times in my life to never bet the farm.

Why this works for you, I would suggest, is that you have an ingrained yet quite effective compensation that allows you to line up the contact point with the top center of the cueball but send the cueball elsewhere. I wouldn't doubt that many people do this with success. In fact, if you are capable of compensating like this consistently, it really simplifies things. No need for an aiming system at all. Just find the contact point and you're off. I think your subconscious takes over and simply doubles the distance for you. More power to you.

I know it can be frustrating explaining things that people just don't get. I do believe I get what you're describing. It just doesn't work for me because I haven't ingrained the compensation. I'm always looking for a system with an exact place to send the center of the cueball without any compensation. But if you can allow your instincts to take over and do the work for you, I think you may be better off than if you were overthinking the process.

Of course, I may be wrong about this compensation. Do you think after my previous posts showing the different lines toward contact point and aiming point that it's possible you're stroking somewhere other than where you're aiming? It's the only thing I can come up with that would make sense to me if you're aiming your rifle directly at the object ball contact/collision point.

Thanks

Of course, you could be right. If I am compensating subconsciously, then by definition I don't realize it.

But I am now CERTAIN that is not the issue and that rather, the issue is entirely visual. Pretty fascinating actually.

I thought up a way to PROVE that I was right and just performed an experiment that I THOUGHT would show that if the method does not work, it is the fault of the OTHER guys eyes and not mine.

I hereby submit the experiment for peer review! (-:

1. I set up the shot as described with loop of the #8 pointing directly at the right corner point.

2. I placed another ball frozen to the 8 ball on a line of centers DEAD on a line to the right point of the pocket. (you want it to point there because CIT will thicken the shot up a bit and it will go nicely.

Now we know where the CB needs to go...but how do we get it there?

3. I laid a straight edge nestled up to the right edges of both the CB and the "real Ghost ball" guaranteeing that if the CB was struck along that line after the ghost ball was removed, that the shot would go dead center.

4. So, now I established what line the CB had to travel with the remaining question being how to aim so it gets there. Since I advocate using the top center of the CB as an aiming sight and since I knew where the CB had to end up, I placed the straigt edge directly over the top center of the CB and the "Ghost Ball"...resting on 3 VHS cases so I didn't have to hold it.

5. Now, the moment of truth. I actually got a little nervous. (kidding) I removed the ghost ball so that I could observe where, on the OB, the center of the CB was aimed at.

My heart sank. The center of the CB was aimed slightly left of the NCP. I knelt down so my eyes were only slightly above the CB....same thing...slightly left.

Then I adopted my normal shooting stance and BINGO, the center appeard to be pointed DIRECTLY at the NCP!

FASCINATING!

Not being an optomitrist, I can only assume that what happens is related to some combination of dominant eye binocular vision, the way my glasses correct for astigmatism and/or parallax vision.

But good news for me, it works like a mule for ME.

But here's a thought for YOU. If you shoot short, just move the NCP further to the thin side...Try a chalk width (1/2 in.)to the right of the thin side point.

The POINT of the method is to use the top of the CB as an aiming reference and not positions on its clock face. If God wanted us to aim that way he would have put gun sights on the side of the barrel!

So just dial in your own NCP factor and it should stay the same all over the table except with very close CB/OB proximity.

But I strongly urge that once you do that, when you take your aim, you IMMEDIATELY dismiss the thought of the FICTITOUS NCP and just notice how may tip widths (in half tip increments...especially on longer shots) the cue tip points left or right of the vertical center of the OB.

Once you have THAT...then as I've said, you can raise up if you don't feel set right...or go take a leak, come back and fall right back on the shot without ever even LOOKING at the pocket!

Props to you for tesing this out. I think it is now a certainty (as I warned all along) that visual perceptions are often SO different that everyone has to calibrate their own points of aim.

Just for example, years ago I was a very competitive skeet shooter and "sharpshooter" rated rifle shooter. And I met many shooters who were marginally or fully cross eye dominant...i.e. left dominant for a right handed shooter.

The sight picture those guys had to use was WAY, WAY different than taught in any instruction book so they just had to create their own sight pictures by trial and error. Some would put an opaque patch in the center of their dominant eye shooting glasses to FORCE right eye dominance...with varying degrees of success.

My point is that vision is a HIGLHLY individualistic thing and that therefore, those who recommend "methods" ought to include a warning (as I always have) that vision may render the method inaccurate.

Likewise, before concluding by the operation of geometry that someone is a crackpot, visual perceptions should be taken into account.

THANKS for this dialog and please do let me know if you decide to calibrate your own NCP and how it works for you if you do.

Regards,
Jim

 

[sixpack]

Yeah, after I responded to your pm this morning I thought about the fact that you mentioned you cue is directly under your chin and so I thought maybe it was your head position that caused the different aiming point.

~rc

 

[av84fun]

Yeah, after I responded to your pm this morning I thought about the fact that you mentioned you cue is directly under your chin and so I thought maybe it was your head position that caused the different aiming point.

~rc

Right! As I noted, without a cue centered under the chin, this method would still work but a different CP would have to be used.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Angle Detective]

Jim, I'm glad you did your experiment. I can definitely see visual issues coming into play. I think it's mainly a visual issue that causes my inconsistency from session to session. Some days I'm on fire. Other days I'm somewhat lost. I probably need checkpoints to make sure I get down on every shot the same way.

I had considered a similar thing to what you're suggesting about finding whatever new aiming point on the object ball that will make a shot go, but I soon remembered that any shot with a more severe angle than 30 degrees(edge ball aim) would have this point outside of the object ball.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we're seeing eye to eye now.

 

[jackson]

Kidding.

I just sent an email about the aiming system that I use and came up with many moons ago and thought I'd share it in case it might help someone.

Even though I worked it out on my own a long time ago, it's not unique, it's just double the distance.

Anyway, here's the email. Happy to hear any flaws. The major flaw in it for me is that my 40 y.o. eyes can't seem to make out the aim points as well as my 20 y.o. eyes could.

Here's the email:
I'll try to explain it - I don't have time to dig up or draw any diagrams this week. So here goes:

This is a system that I developed myself while I was in college and trying to come up with a systematic way to figure out where to aim.

Basically, if you are looking at the CB to OB from behind the CB. There are two interesting points, one is the center of the OB in relationship to the CB. The other is the contact point (CP) needed to hit for to make the shot.

Mathematically using trig because both objects are round, the aim point to make the CB hit the contact point is excatly double the distance from the center of the OB to the CP. (for most distance of shots, this breaks down when the CB and OB are very close)

So what I do is aim the center of the CB to the center of the OB, then turn to aim the center of the CB to the contact point, then aim that much farther out again.

Another way you can do it is when you are sighting down the cuestick and line up the center to center aim line. Then look for the contact point on the OB and see where it lines up on your tip. i.e. 10 o'clock. Then turn and aim to where the contact point is at the opposite point, or 2 o'clock in this case. One AZBer said that he has tick marks on his ferrule for this. (FrankinCali maybe)

This simplified version does not allow for squirt or swerve.

Also, I used to aim directly under my dominant eye and I'm not sure if this system will work if you are not. I think it will but I'm not sure.

For squirt you'll need to experiment because all cues, cloths and strokes are different. But for me a rough guideline is:

Cutting with outside english. Aim further outside. The more english you use, the furtherr outside you aim. I keep the aim line close and adjust my bridge hand and back hand slightly but keep my body aligned with the aim line. (See the Joe T videos posted yesterday).

For inside english shots, I do the same with regard to body alignment and adjusting the backhand and bridge hand slightly. Aiming the cue stick at the contact point will get you close. (or at least put your errors on the correct side) Most shots you will make doing that but you'll need to experiment and learn when you will and when you won't otherwise you'll never be great at pocketing balls with english.

Accelerating through the ball seems to produce less squirt while decelerating through it seems to create more.

If you are using bottom english and sidespin, then you don't need to compensate as much because the CB will swerve back into the original path.

Also, the slower the shot the more swerve and the longer the shot the more swervve. This too will require some experimentation. I suspect you could make yourself a chart (or find one online) that tells you how much swerve to expect on a certain length, speed shot and you could try and figure it out every shot. By far the easier way to do this is to keep shooting different shots with different english and commit to remembering how the CB reacts.

This is my system and I'm sure the science guys on AZB can find about a hundred flaws in it, but it works pretty good for me.

Also, this is the double the distance system that I came up with. Others before me and since have no doubt come up with the same system and I am not familiar with any of them so I don't know what their strengths and weaknesses may be.

~rc

Seems to me that one Don "Preacher" Feeney, a pool player in the Chicago
area wrote a series of articles on aiming and one of them was called "double the distance" , I believe he wrote for Pool and Billiard Magazine or Billiards Digest but I remember him using that terminology
"double the distance" quite possibly before your "discovery".

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Seems to me that one Don "Preacher" Feeney, a pool player in the Chicago
area wrote a series of articles on aiming and one of them was called "double the distance" , I believe he wrote for Pool and Billiard Magazine or Billiards Digest but I remember him using that terminology
"double the distance" quite possibly before your "discovery".

"Double the distance" (or "double overlap" or "double offset" or several other names for it) is an old method; it's been around forever. It's also a "geometrically correct" system: it lines the CB and OB up correctly to hit the contact point you've selected.

Selecting the right contact point (including adjustment for throw as necessary), sighting the overlap accurately, pointing and delivering the CB precisely (including adjustment for squirt/swerve as necessary) are up to you.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

Jim, I'm glad you did your experiment. I can definitely see visual issues coming into play. I think it's mainly a visual issue that causes my inconsistency from session to session. Some days I'm on fire. Other days I'm somewhat lost. I probably need checkpoints to make sure I get down on every shot the same way.

I had considered a similar thing to what you're suggesting about finding whatever new aiming point on the object ball that will make a shot go, but I soon remembered that any shot with a more severe angle than 30 degrees(edge ball aim) would have this point outside of the object ball.

Nonetheless, I'm glad we're seeing eye to eye now.

Very funny!!! (-:


Well, you've really set me to work and I APPRECIATE it as you will see. You might want to reconsider not investigating the idea of simply moving the NCP line of centers a chalk width to the thin side.

I did so and found that the cut has to be pretty thin before the top center rifle sight points entirely off the OB. Again acknowledging vision differences...I put an OB on the head spot...then froze 2 OBs to the right...then removed the first 2.

Then I put the CB at the right corner of the break box..sort of like a spot shot but MUCH thinner. The sight for me is still on the OB and that's a pretty sporty cut shot.

But the GREAT news...for me...is that after shooting 100 shots tonight, I find that using that 1 chalk offset actually sent to OB more to the CENTER of the pocket than my former NCP!

I've been making shots so consistently with the old NCP that I just didn't realize that they were often not going DEAD center.

Using the thinner NCP was SCARY accurate for me with the only exception being, for some reason, on quite thin...say 60 degree back cuts that tended to be too thin so for them, the old NCP works best.

Give it a try...1 chalk thinner than the thin side pocket point. (-:

And when the aim does go off the OB, I just use the "equal/opposites" method...but don't use it full time since it involves aiming off the side of the OB which is not intuitive....for me.

And BTW...like many people, I think...I tend not to "aim" at all...consciously on a lot of shots that lay so obvious that it seems silly to consciously aim.

But I, for one, am trying to break that habit and watching JJ in his 10 Ball match with busta where he dogged the 7 ball twice in one rack only confirms my suspicion that TOTAL commitment to EVERY shot is the smart way to play....and what is commitment without precision aiming?

Just my 2 cents...and 2 eyes.
Jim

 

[LAMas]

The double the distance does break down when the CB and OB are very close together. When that happens then aiming the CB CP to the OB CP is a bit easier to see/aim.

 

[Angle Detective]

Jim, I'm glad it got you working. I'm having a hard time visualizing the shots you set up. Can you use the cuetable?

 

[av84fun]

Jim, I'm glad it got you working. I'm having a hard time visualizing the shots you set up. Can you use the cuetable?

I've GOT to get my nose in the instructions and become Wei-literate. SORRY.

Just put the CB at the front right corner of the "break box" i.e. 2 diamonds downtable and 1 diamond inward.

Put an ob on the foot spot and freeze 2 balls next to it...on the right...on the foot string.

Then remove the ball on the spot and the one next to it so the remaining ball is on the foot string, 2 ball widths to the right of the spot.

(-:
Jim

 

[av84fun]

The double the distance does break down when the CB and OB are very close together. When that happens then aiming the CB CP to the OB CP is a bit easier to see/aim.

Right. On very close shots, I just find the correct (hopefully) CP and just imagine where the front side of the CB is and where to direct the CB so that its edge will contact the CP.

Regards,
Jim

 

[sixpack]

Maybe you should "discover" reading comprehension. I explicitly said that it wasn't unique and even referenced its more common name.

In your haste to discredit me you forgot to make sure you had a case.

~rc

Seems to me that one Don "Preacher" Feeney, a pool player in the Chicago
area wrote a series of articles on aiming and one of them was called "double the distance" , I believe he wrote for Pool and Billiard Magazine or Billiards Digest but I remember him using that terminology
"double the distance" quite possibly before your "discovery".

 

[av84fun]

Yeah, after I responded to your pm this morning I thought about the fact that you mentioned you cue is directly under your chin and so I thought maybe it was your head position that caused the different aiming point.

~rc

Just another comment on the dominant eye matter you raised. I got WAY deep into that subject as a sheet and rifle shooter. The dominance of the dominant eye is RELATIVE and varies from person to person.

And due to the nature of binolular vision, people's perceptions can be quite different.

Just for grins, stand 12 ft. from a wall with an object on it. Point your finger straight at the object and then close your dominant eye.

When I do that, my finger points 8.5 inches to the right. Your results are likely to be different by an inch or more...which doesn't sound like much...unless you're trying to shoot at what you are pointing at!!

(-:
Jim

 

[Angle Detective]

I've GOT to get my nose in the instructions and become Wei-literate. SORRY.

Just put the CB at the front right corner of the "break box" i.e. 2 diamonds downtable and 1 diamond inward.

Put an ob on the foot spot and freeze 2 balls next to it...on the right...on the foot string.

Then remove the ball on the spot and the one next to it so the remaining ball is on the foot string, 2 ball widths to the right of the spot.

(-:
Jim

Jim, the cuetable is so easy. You should really look into it. As for the shot you're describing it doesn't seem like much of a cut. I may be picturing it wrong though, hence, the need for illustration. There's a sticky on the main forum page with instructions for using the cuetable. I also started a thread called cuetable 101 in the straight pool section for a very stripped down quick lesson.

 

[kildegirl]

Kidding.

I just sent an email about the aiming system that I use and came up with many moons ago and thought I'd share it in case it might help someone.

Even though I worked it out on my own a long time ago, it's not unique, it's just double the distance.

Anyway, here's the email. Happy to hear any flaws. The major flaw in it for me is that my 40 y.o. eyes can't seem to make out the aim points as well as my 20 y.o. eyes could.

Here's the email:
I'll try to explain it - I don't have time to dig up or draw any diagrams this week. So here goes:

This is a system that I developed myself while I was in college and trying to come up with a systematic way to figure out where to aim.

Basically, if you are looking at the CB to OB from behind the CB. There are two interesting points, one is the center of the OB in relationship to the CB. The other is the contact point (CP) needed to hit for to make the shot.

Mathematically using trig because both objects are round, the aim point to make the CB hit the contact point is excatly double the distance from the center of the OB to the CP. (for most distance of shots, this breaks down when the CB and OB are very close)

So what I do is aim the center of the CB to the center of the OB, then turn to aim the center of the CB to the contact point, then aim that much farther out again.

Another way you can do it is when you are sighting down the cuestick and line up the center to center aim line. Then look for the contact point on the OB and see where it lines up on your tip. i.e. 10 o'clock. Then turn and aim to where the contact point is at the opposite point, or 2 o'clock in this case. One AZBer said that he has tick marks on his ferrule for this. (FrankinCali maybe)

This simplified version does not allow for squirt or swerve.

Also, I used to aim directly under my dominant eye and I'm not sure if this system will work if you are not. I think it will but I'm not sure.

For squirt you'll need to experiment because all cues, cloths and strokes are different. But for me a rough guideline is:

Cutting with outside english. Aim further outside. The more english you use, the furtherr outside you aim. I keep the aim line close and adjust my bridge hand and back hand slightly but keep my body aligned with the aim line. (See the Joe T videos posted yesterday).

For inside english shots, I do the same with regard to body alignment and adjusting the backhand and bridge hand slightly. Aiming the cue stick at the contact point will get you close. (or at least put your errors on the correct side) Most shots you will make doing that but you'll need to experiment and learn when you will and when you won't otherwise you'll never be great at pocketing balls with english.

Accelerating through the ball seems to produce less squirt while decelerating through it seems to create more.

If you are using bottom english and sidespin, then you don't need to compensate as much because the CB will swerve back into the original path.

Also, the slower the shot the more swerve and the longer the shot the more swervve. This too will require some experimentation. I suspect you could make yourself a chart (or find one online) that tells you how much swerve to expect on a certain length, speed shot and you could try and figure it out every shot. By far the easier way to do this is to keep shooting different shots with different english and commit to remembering how the CB reacts.

This is my system and I'm sure the science guys on AZB can find about a hundred flaws in it, but it works pretty good for me.

Also, this is the double the distance system that I came up with. Others before me and since have no doubt come up with the same system and I am not familiar with any of them so I don't know what their strengths and weaknesses may be.

~rc

DOUBLE THE DISTANCE IS AN OLD METHOD WITH A LOT OF PROBLEMS. SORRY TO BREAK YOUR BUBBLE.