Fine. Where can I get pool like that? And what about pocket size and combinations?
How do you feel about contact geometry?
Simple aiming system cont...
- Thread starter Mensabum
- Start date
How do you feel about contact geometry?
You are drifting well beyond the original premise of the discussion.
Throw, pocket size, combinations & contact geometry are all topics for another time & place.
Which can produce maximum throw. The way to eliminate throw is with “gearing” outside english, using just the right amount of spin for each cut angle. Otherwise you need to aim a little thinner.
pj
chgo
Scuse me? Geometry was the premise of this thread? I'm actually in a pretty good mood and only posting to defend some precious physics. I mean seriously what <would> you tell a curious beginner?
All I'm worried about with a curious beginner is this. Where to aim the CB, hit the CB & as a end result the OB.
Certainly not going to introduce terms such as deflection, contact geometry etc etc.
Don't you think the beginner needs to learn how to hit a cue ball first (?) and that the first phenomenon to occur will be deflection? Besides, the concept of contact geometry is not particularly complicated or advanced. Most kids know intuitively how basic shots work and even if they've never thought about it, a couple examples would clear up any mystery.
No a beginner does not need to learn how to hit a cue ball first. They are far better off learning how to pocket a ball by directly hitting an object ball into the pocket & moving on from there.
2D drawings don't illustrate a 3D world well. Look at the images in post 56 which is far closer to what our eyes see than the drawings of perfectly equal sized balls.
When we are dealing with balls that look different sized by what we see on the table, the pretty images and a lot of the theory goes out the window. There is one fixed variable, center ball, OK, to give a little I will say center ball and center line. Looking at the images in post 56, the cue ball looks to be twice the size of the object ball. The parallel lines that look so pretty in a drawing either are left hanging out in space on the far end or now converge.
I haven't tried to figure out if our vision helps or hurts the various aiming techniques being put forward. To be honest, my method has worked for me for over fifty years and I have beaten some of the best. For me, the proof is in the pudding.
Years ago I tried one of the aiming methods advocated strongly on AZB. On a nine foot Diamond, it worked the vast majority of the time cutting left. I'll blame the misses on Hu man error. Then I set up the mirror image of the shot to cut right. I pocketed about the same number of balls that I had missed cutting left.
A pool hall bum and good guy watched me miss that shot cutting right for about fifteen minutes. Finally he came over. "Let me show you how to make that shot!" I tried to explain that I was trying to make the shot using a certain technique, not just make the shot. He didn't believe me.
A good while back now there was money to be had playing virtual pool. Was supposed to develop into big money. In the perfect virtual world with no vision, aim, stroke, or tip contact errors I was a pool shooting son of a gun. It didn't translate into the real world. Too, the gamers quickly revealed that the game was rigged when they assumed I was one of them when I was winning. Same issue as internet poker, superusers who can see things regular players can't.
Hu
Hu
When we are dealing with balls that look different sized by what we see on the table, the pretty images and a lot of the theory goes out the window. There is one fixed variable, center ball, OK, to give a little I will say center ball and center line. Looking at the images in post 56, the cue ball looks to be twice the size of the object ball. The parallel lines that look so pretty in a drawing either are left hanging out in space on the far end or now converge.
I haven't tried to figure out if our vision helps or hurts the various aiming techniques being put forward. To be honest, my method has worked for me for over fifty years and I have beaten some of the best. For me, the proof is in the pudding.
Years ago I tried one of the aiming methods advocated strongly on AZB. On a nine foot Diamond, it worked the vast majority of the time cutting left. I'll blame the misses on Hu man error. Then I set up the mirror image of the shot to cut right. I pocketed about the same number of balls that I had missed cutting left.
A pool hall bum and good guy watched me miss that shot cutting right for about fifteen minutes. Finally he came over. "Let me show you how to make that shot!" I tried to explain that I was trying to make the shot using a certain technique, not just make the shot. He didn't believe me.
A good while back now there was money to be had playing virtual pool. Was supposed to develop into big money. In the perfect virtual world with no vision, aim, stroke, or tip contact errors I was a pool shooting son of a gun. It didn't translate into the real world. Too, the gamers quickly revealed that the game was rigged when they assumed I was one of them when I was winning. Same issue as internet poker, superusers who can see things regular players can't.
Hu
Hu
Quite a tangent, just questioning the validity of lone and dead half ball hits. Which still require good cue ball striking mind Fore Rail.
The 2d diagrams get the "point" across. Anyone needing the diagrams is directed visually to the required visualization points.
Anyway, Mensabum posted a faulty premise and most of the responses are attempts to point (there's that word again) out the flaw and/or correct it.
I think Fore Rail interjected with a tangent on Willie's parallel stuff with the half ball concept which, OK, what of it?
I find it curious how people take all kinds of sides on these aiming issues and always cite the hypothetical noob that can only grasp the theory being proposed.
The 2d diagrams get the "point" across. Anyone needing the diagrams is directed visually to the required visualization points.
Anyway, Mensabum posted a faulty premise and most of the responses are attempts to point (there's that word again) out the flaw and/or correct it.
I think Fore Rail interjected with a tangent on Willie's parallel stuff with the half ball concept which, OK, what of it?
I find it curious how people take all kinds of sides on these aiming issues and always cite the hypothetical noob that can only grasp the theory being proposed.
I definitely agree being too systematic can burn your brain out over long sessions and tournaments when you get into late nights. I went through a phase of that.
There is a mountain of over thinking here about something that is pretty obvious and straightforward.
Last edited:
Another view.,..
Knowing more doesn't = overthinking. More knowledge doesn't inhibit your ability to play "in the zone" - it elevates your zone.
pj
chgo
I agree that knowledge is an advantage. I use it all the time. I also have “systems” I use to play the game. Sometimes I rely on “feel” too. I have personally experienced entering a tournament in a very systematic mindset and performed very well for many hours but my matches continued through to 3 AM and my brain burned out and I went on tilt. Even Jeremy Jones says “Sometimes the game is just meant to be played” in that same light.
Last edited:
I can explain the zone, have a double handful of times over the years. The issue is that it takes belief in something that isn't clearly understood step by step and every single nut and bolt of how it works. Those who have been in the true zone understand. Those that haven't been rarely do. It is far more than being in a state of maximum physical and mental readiness.
I hit the zone playing pool, won over 160 games of eight ball straight on an old nine foot junk table. Played about thirty people, maybe six or eight could run the table themselves, not that I ran every game. I ran most of the time against those six or eight. I played carefully and coasted against the bangers a lot of the time. Main thing was avoiding scratching or the various ways to lose on the eight, making it on the break or scratching on the eight. In ten or twelve hours I never scratched on those bucket pockets, a major feat in itself. I won over eight hundred dollars that night at five dollars a game on that old nine foot challenge table. Daylight when I walked in the place, daylight when I walked out the next morning. The oddest thing, I knew I had played ten or twelve hours, my body and mind felt fresh like I had played for two and a half or three hours. I was ready to go for another dozen hours or more. The last of my opponents had peeled off to go to work, no shave, no shower. I was literally the last man standing.
A long off topic story but it pertains to the zone. Those interested put some coffee on or grab something cool, this won't be a quick read.
It was a dark and stormy night. Always a great way to start a story but the truth too. Target stands blowing over, targets blown away to never be seen again. The rain wasn't falling so much as coming in sideways sheets. There was a roof over the firing line, about eight feet wide and 150 feet long. Needless to say, it didn't do much to protect us with no sidewalls. It was meant as a daytime sun shade. The targets were out in the the rain and wind squall.
About a dozen of us had shown up to shoot. There were twenty-one official rules to those matches. Rule twenty-two was word of mouth, when it rained we got wet. The maximum score was six hundred points, ten points a shot and there was a time clock running. Late shots didn't count.
Dozens of Masters and IPSC Grandmasters had shot these matches. A youngster named Jerry Miculek had cut his teeth there, shot them many times. He still shot them sometimes when he came home to visit. With over twenty world championships he was certainly the best that ever shot there and his brother Donny was still the class of the field when Jerry wasn't there. Once the stress of shooting a six hundred was gone, dozens of 598's and 599's had been shot. I had shot some myself. Nobody ever shot a six hundred.
The match that night was brutal. Very poor lighting and stationary targets were becoming movers. Didn't matter, no reshoots unless we couldn't find a target to be scored which didn't happen on mine.
With two stages to go I was still "clean" no dropped points. With so few shooters we were just using four lanes. I had already shot the toughest stage for me. I decided I was shooting a six hundred that night. I grabbed a folding metal chair and went off in the dark about a hundred feet at the far end of the firing line. I shot the fifth stage dozens of times in my mind. I tried to feel the recoil, hear the shots, even smell the burnt powder, made the stage as real as possible.
I had been finding the zone often in the past month or so. My plan was to find it on demand twice that night. Something widely considered impossible even by those that understood the zone. However, the more often you find the zone the easier it gets. A buzzer starts the run and we were starting from the hands up position that night for A class and Masters. Draw, six shots, reload, six more. The six shot limit was to keep the matches revolver friendly.
I was called to the line. Dropped into the zone at the buzzer as planned. Shot that stage smoothly and perfectly, one more to go. Back to the dark end of the line. Same drill practicing the final stage.
I was called to the line. The target and stand were rocking mightily. To make life more interesting the black no shoot area was almost indistinguishable from the wet cardboard colored paper in the dim light. The legal target area on the final targets was a diagonal with most of the normal legal area painted over with flat black paint. Shooting a group into that diagonal made for a very small legal area.
"Shooter ready. Stand by:" Buzzer. I dropped into the zone again and fired my first six shots, reload, four more. Two to go, two into a target almost impossible to see. I was well ahead of the clock so I stopped firing and very carefully lined my gun up dead center of the legal zone. While I paused for a couple seconds my riding partner was directly behind me with his hands half up silently urging me to shoot. I had lost six hundreds before on the final shot, I wasn't doing it this time!
I fired, then my final shot an eyeblink after the first one. Two shots in the center of the scoring zone maybe an inch apart. As long as they didn't touch black paint it didn't matter.
On the way home naturally we were talking about the final stage. I told Steve I knew he was behind me with his hands half up. "How could you know that?" The answer was the zone, and senses that science doesn't understand yet.
I could tell another dozen tales or more of magic when in the zone. In the zone my stock car was an extension of my body and magic happened then too. Saved a guy's life once when a poorly constructed rollcage shattered. Had I hit him full throttle instead of missing him by a few inches or less he would have been dead. I had seen a fatality from just that the year before.
Believe, don't believe, the zone will still be there.
Hu
I have used pretty much this method (with a slight variation) of shooting for a long time now....Every time I try a different method I end up going back to this since it is so easy to use I always start center CB.....I have tried to describe it multiple times on various threads but it has always fallen on deaf ears....as with other posts...so I have pretty much stopped posting.
I dubbed what I do the triangle method...I will sometimes look OB to pocket just for reference but in most cases I actually ignore "actual contact point"
I apply your method a tad different....I start by looking CB to pocket. One slight difference is I always look to the path from the CB to the open part of the pocket instead of through part of the rail as shown. I visualize the entire triangle as shown in the picture. For whatever reason looking CB to pocket seems to make it real easy for me to see the track lines for CB to OB and OB to pocket.....I am able to see the track line the CB needs to take.....but my personal track line is through center GB and extends to a contact point either on the bottom of the ball or off into space.....If the contact point is off into space...for what I call "off the ball" aim point.....that is when the edge of shaft is used to the edge of the OB....or on extreme cuts the edge of the CB to edge of the OB
To me it is stupid simple to align any shot to any pocket or point on the table....Is the system mathematically correct...probably not....Is there feel involved in almost every shot for any system......the thinner the hit I would see yes....even ghost ball.....will the system work for everyone....not a chance....will it get praised by some, poo pooed by some and ignored by most...If I posted it...for sure....LOL
I don't miss because of aim I miss because of talent.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
See the thing it, you could have the absolute best, most amazing, aiming system ever. It may not be mathematically correct and that will bring out the pitchfork wielding mathematicians. That's fine. They are correct about the math and physics. That said it makes the aiming system no less accurate, useful, absolute top tier best aiming system ever used.
An aiming system is a starting point for your subconscious to use. It's a pretty talented fella. It can do the remainder of the math/work/feel that is needed. I understand the desire to have a mathematically perfect system, but in the end of the day it's what happens when mind and body put the cue to motion.
Once again for the kids in the back: "Any starting point is as good as any other as long as it's consistent."
I'd rather look at the ball with knowledge gained through HAMB, visualize the ball going in and the CB doing what you need (if you can't visualize it, you've not addressed the ball correctly, this visualization is to be trusted 100%, not doing so is a chump move because when it's correct you can feel it, almost like a shiver down your spine). When this visualization happens, I have the "feel" of the shot. At this point I'd rather focus on my breathing, how the air feels on my skin, etc because anything my mind does actively like thinking about fractions, half ball hits, throw, swerve, friction, humidity is what causes a miss. Mind and body as one and it can't be if I'm tossing math and systems around in my head. Visualize it, confirm the visualization results in a made ball, then shoot. As Matthew 5:37 says in the NKJV "But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one."
That little nagging "dude" thinking about misses, fractions, whatever should be ignored. Confirm you're correct then shoot, simply let yes be yes or no be no. If it's "no" on the shot you've addressed the ball incorrectly. Get up, throw some chalk on, think about pink elephants, do a jumping jack or whatever you have to do to clear your mind. Then re-address the shot and go from there. If you can't get the visualization working, play a safe. This game is pretty easy if you get your fundamentals to the point of being trustworthy, shoot enough shots to understand how they work, and only shoot shots that look right (visualizing results in a yes).
An aiming system is a starting point for your subconscious to use. It's a pretty talented fella. It can do the remainder of the math/work/feel that is needed. I understand the desire to have a mathematically perfect system, but in the end of the day it's what happens when mind and body put the cue to motion.
Once again for the kids in the back: "Any starting point is as good as any other as long as it's consistent."
I'd rather look at the ball with knowledge gained through HAMB, visualize the ball going in and the CB doing what you need (if you can't visualize it, you've not addressed the ball correctly, this visualization is to be trusted 100%, not doing so is a chump move because when it's correct you can feel it, almost like a shiver down your spine). When this visualization happens, I have the "feel" of the shot. At this point I'd rather focus on my breathing, how the air feels on my skin, etc because anything my mind does actively like thinking about fractions, half ball hits, throw, swerve, friction, humidity is what causes a miss. Mind and body as one and it can't be if I'm tossing math and systems around in my head. Visualize it, confirm the visualization results in a made ball, then shoot. As Matthew 5:37 says in the NKJV "But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one."
That little nagging "dude" thinking about misses, fractions, whatever should be ignored. Confirm you're correct then shoot, simply let yes be yes or no be no. If it's "no" on the shot you've addressed the ball incorrectly. Get up, throw some chalk on, think about pink elephants, do a jumping jack or whatever you have to do to clear your mind. Then re-address the shot and go from there. If you can't get the visualization working, play a safe. This game is pretty easy if you get your fundamentals to the point of being trustworthy, shoot enough shots to understand how they work, and only shoot shots that look right (visualizing results in a yes).
One of the better posts I have seen in ages. Part I will freely admit I don't fully understand. I understand the important part, your aiming technique gets you where you need to be.
The part about if you can't visualize it, it ain't gonna happen is gold. It might happen once in a thousand by purest fluke or miscue but I'd put the odds at less than one percent. I always shoot the shot I "see" even if there are lower percentage shots available that I don't see as clearly. The "head" is good, the "gut" is better!
Thank You! Once again, a very very strong post.
Hu
Back to back great posts from you and Boogieman. I don't know if your method would work for me, probably not without going back to square one and rebuilding my game. I trained my eyes to see things in a way that works for me. It would take retraining them to see a different way I suspect.
It is almost comical how badly I miss when I attempt fractional aiming. I can't see the balls that way. I think I do, until I shoot. I suspect I would have the same issue with your system. The way I see things interferes with other methods.
A great post. Thanks for posting it!
Hu
Many years ago (1998?) in the middle of a previous aiming war, I posted this, which I think still applies.
My experience is that the majority of people cannot make the connection between abstract geometry (such as a half-ball hit) and what happens while they play pool. It may be true that cut angle is a continuous function of the fullness of hit, but most people have neither use for nor understanding of a concept such as "function of".
For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park. Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.
Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular lines. Most people are not geometrians.
Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear to me why people who know a system works for them psychologically argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.
My experience is that the majority of people cannot make the connection between abstract geometry (such as a half-ball hit) and what happens while they play pool. It may be true that cut angle is a continuous function of the fullness of hit, but most people have neither use for nor understanding of a concept such as "function of".
For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park. Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.
Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular lines. Most people are not geometrians.
Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear to me why people who know a system works for them psychologically argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.
Last edited: