Simple aiming system cont...

Bob Jewett said:
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 my why people who know a system works for them psychologically argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.
Click to expand...

Bob,

A great post from someone that understands the physics and geometry of pool as well or better than anyone else on the forum. If we go down to the pool hall we will find that most everyone or everyone there is in error in terms of physics and geometry. Could you imagine trying to talk about these things with Efren? However, like Efren, most of the people at the hall have figured out how to pocket balls and navigate around the table.

It took me a very long time to understand that there are many things that we can simply "black box" and forget about details. A very good friend and very smart person genuinely believed in witches and witchcraft. These were core beliefs, as real as what he gained from church on Sundays. I could have spent a lot of time trying to convince him that witches and witchcraft weren't real but two things stopped me. First, these things filled large gaps in his understanding. The other thing, I can say with over 95% certainty that these things aren't real, maybe even above 99%. I can't quite reach 100% though because there are things I know and have seen with my own eyes that are unexplained.

Hu
 
Physics is a wonderful thing! However, a half ball hit does not give a thirty degree cut. A myth I have heard repeated countless times. Easy to see how newcomers are confused. It seems that pool physics are outside the realm of the physics the rest of the world uses. Not really surprising, pretty much every pursuit I have spent much time in has had beliefs that would be unique to that activity if true.

Hu
 
There is a player in my area that just knows it all about the game of pool. If one doesn't think so, just ask the FIGJAM & he will tell ya. Trouble with all this knowledge is his pattern play & CB control is just absolutely horrible.

All the knowledge in the world doesn't help at all if a player can't apply it correctly.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
A half ball alignment makes a thirty degree cut angle, and a thirty degree cut if friction is eliminated.

I must be missing something…

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You are missing something as is often the case. We are not saying the same thing. Often the problem when trying to use physics, geometry, all forms of math. When the equation isn't framed properly, usually by leaving things out, the answer is wrong. Then we have the issue of saying one thing while meaning another which I brought to attention above.

"Half ball hit" is often used as shorthand for something else entirely but how is a newcomer supposed to know that?

Hu
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Does that happen with the "half ball" terminology?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

No, the "half ball hit" terminology is often used incorrectly. Since we could go on back and forth for days I will make it simple to understand. A half ball hit and a half ball aim isn't the same thing although people often say "half ball hit" when they mean "half ball aim". That is my point about framing things incorrectly in many ways. There is only one correct framing granted that the units can be in different order sometimes, almost endless wrong ways to frame something. That is my issue with poorly understood physics and geometry in pool. When the question isn't phrased properly there is almost zero chance of the answer being correct.

I was playing a shortstop, somebody that should have known better and probably did but he was fussing because a ball reversed unexpectedly off of a rail. A given it would considering spin and angle but he acted as if all the laws of physics had just been overturned!

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
... A half ball hit and a half ball aim isn't the same thing although people often say "half ball hit" when they mean "half ball aim". That is my point ...
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you have lost me. A half ball aim is when the cue stick is lined up through the center of the cue ball and pointed at the edge of the object ball. A half ball hit is what you get for a half ball aim. (Without friction it gives a 30-degree cut.)

This is absolutely standard terminology that has been used for over a hundred years.

What are the definitions and uses you propose that are different from this?
 
Bob Jewett said:
I'm afraid you have lost me. A half ball aim is when the cue stick is lined up through the center of the cue ball and pointed at the edge of the object ball. A half ball hit is what you get for a half ball aim. (Without friction it gives a 30-degree cut.)

This is absolutely standard terminology that has been used for over a hundred years.

What are the definitions and uses you propose that are different from this?
Click to expand...


How about for "half ball hit" mean a half ball hit. The term has been used to mean this for over a hundred years too.

If I were to debate this in front of an impartial panel of judges that weren't pool players I would explain that the term is a bit nebulous, not because of the confusion with a half ball aim, but because two different things can both be called a half ball hit. Should I measure a half ball from the edge on both balls, I would get a full face hit. The ball would go straight forward. If instead I said a quarter of the cue ball and a quarter of the object ball equaled a half ball, then a half ball hit would indeed deliver close to a forty-five degree path for the object ball. One thing for sure, there is no way that a half ball hit gives a thirty degree path.

A half ball aim gives a thirty degree path because with the curves of the balls it doesn't give a half ball hit. Sloppy documentation to use "half ball aim" and "half ball hit" interchangeably. They give different results.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
How about for "half ball hit" mean a half ball hit. The term has been used to mean this for over a hundred years too.

If I were to debate this in front of an impartial panel of judges that weren't pool players I would explain that the term is a bit nebulous, not because of the confusion with a half ball aim, but because two different things can both be called a half ball hit. Should I measure a half ball from the edge on both balls, I would get a full face hit. The ball would go straight forward. If instead I said a quarter of the cue ball and a quarter of the object ball equaled a half ball, then a half ball hit would indeed deliver close to a forty-five degree path for the object ball. One thing for sure, there is no way that a half ball hit gives a thirty degree path.

A half ball aim gives a thirty degree path because with the curves of the balls it doesn't give a half ball hit. Sloppy documentation to use "half ball aim" and "half ball hit" interchangeably. They give different results.

Hu
Click to expand...
That's not the way pool authors have been using the terms forever. Can you come up with any references for your mistaken usage?
 
Bob Jewett said:
I'm afraid you have lost me. A half ball aim is when the cue stick is lined up through the center of the cue ball and pointed at the edge of the object ball. A half ball hit is what you get for a half ball aim. (Without friction it gives a 30-degree cut.)

This is absolutely standard terminology that has been used for over a hundred years.

What are the definitions and uses you propose that are different from this?
Click to expand...
technically speaking
IMO
when you use a half ball aim
the cue ball does not "hit" ie contact the object ball, at the half ball spot
just sayin
;)
 
bbb said:
technically speaking
IMO
when you use a half ball aim
the cue ball does not "hit" ie contact the object ball, at the half ball spot
just sayin
;)
Click to expand...
What in your opinion is the "half ball spot" if it's not where a half ball shot and aim hit? Can you point to any written reference to support your notion?
 
Bob Jewett said:
What in your opinion is the "half ball spot" if it's not where a half ball shot and aim hit? Can you point to any written reference to support your notion?
Click to expand...
I can’t point to a written reference for what I said
I think conventional doctrine and you can correct me Bob since you know more than I do
Is a half ball “hit”refers to a half ball overlap of the cue ball with the object ball, which is why you can aim the center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball
But when you aim that way
The hit or contact is actually about halfway between the vertical axis of the object ball and the edge, which is not a half ball hit technically speaking even though that’s not how it’s used in common usage
Also since you’re not contacting half of the ball, you end up with a 30° cut
Jmho
Icbw
 
Last edited:
bbb said:
I can’t point to a written reference for what I said
...
Click to expand...
A half ball shot
A half ball hit
Half ball aim
Half ball follow angle
Half ball contact

They all refer to the same shot -- the center of the cue ball goes towards the edge of the object ball. It's all the same thing. There is no need to complicate it. That's the way it has been for at least a hundred years. Let's not introduce pointless little word quibbles.

The half ball shot is the most important shot to know after the straight in.. Maybe even more important.
 
Bob Jewett said:
A half ball shot
A half ball hit
Half ball aim
Half ball follow angle
Half ball contact

They all refer to the same shot -- the center of the cue ball goes towards the edge of the object ball. It's all the same thing. There is no need to complicate it. That's the way it has been for at least a hundred years. Let's not introduce pointless little word quibbles.

The half ball shot is the most important shot to know after the straight in.. Maybe even more important.
Click to expand...
i am with you bob...(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top