Simple aiming system cont...

[Mensabum]

There is a separate section for "aiming systems", this one is already well known. Joe tucker has a video talking about this contact point of lining up and also sold a set of balls made to line up the numbers (locations) of the two balls.

Thanks for the info.
I'm not looking for money or any of that. Certainly didn't expect the exposure this mess has generated. Appreciate knowing there's a thread on this.
Found out after the fact.
That'll teach me not to do spontaneous crap on a dare. Lol.

 

[Mensabum]

If I understood your explanation properly, it would not be mathemathically correct. Correct me if I got it wrong, but given your instructions, wouldn't I aim this shot into the orange line, causing the OB to go way off towards the red arrow instead of the pocket?
View attachment 762712

For reference, this is what the same shot would look like if diagrammed with the typical way of doing parallel line contact point aiming, which is mathemathically correct as a simplification of a pool shot, ignoring all other variables (throw, spin etc.)

View attachment 762713

No bcuz your line to the cue ball/pocket in the first drawing is inaccurate.

 

[Mensabum]

This works. It's mathematically correct and I welcome any personal challenge to prove it - on table!!
Simple. Try it, you'll like it.

 

[ShootingArts]

This works. It's mathematically correct and I welcome any personal challenge to prove it - on table!!
Simple. Try it, you'll like it.

The main issue with all threads like this. There is internet theory and there is where the rubber meets the road or the tip meets the cue ball.

The last pool hall I hung out at regularly was Buffalo's ratty old place on Airline after Katrina. The very best came through there regularly plus there was a knowledgeable rail. You couldn't have gotten any of them even started on things we go around about for weeks or months here. They might set up a shot and challenge each other to make it. That could keep them busy for hours. Try to explain the math or physics behind the shot and their eyes will roll up and they will head back to their stools and coffee.

I am as bad as anyone about hammering on the computer when I can't get to a pool hall but giving the choice between talking or doing, doing takes a heavy precedent. Did a lot of bench racing when I was circle tracking too. Now, those guys would sit around for hours arguing over something that they knew didn't matter. Wherever they hang on the net is guaranteed tons of traffic!

I wonder how we could combine pool and benchrest? That bunch knew a thing or two about burning up the net! I had left the forum a year or two before when a friend contacted me to let me know there was a thread running there titled "Hu is wrong!" I took a look, The thread was already at 255 posts and running wild! All of them including the original post were agreeing with what I said! I still had an account but with dozens of people agreeing with my position and none disagreeing what was I supposed to post? A chuckle for pj and Bob, the discussion was about physics. The people arguing I was wrong way back before this thread were maintaining that friction and gravity didn't exist, or didn't apply to weight on an inclined plane.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I will maintain that a half ball aim doesn't give a half ball hit until the cows come home and a lot longer. If it gave a half ball hit it would give a forty-five degree angle, not thirty.

So "half ball hit" is defined by the fraction of maximum cut angle it produces?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So "half ball hit" is defined by the fraction of maximum cut angle it produces?

So I guess a half ball aim produces a 1/3 ball hit (1/3 of 90 degrees)?

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

So "half ball hit" is defined by the fraction of maximum cut angle it produces?

pj
chgo

It can be. I suspect there are at least a half dozen ways it could be defined, all accurate. The question is, which definition is most effective for our use? Forty-five degrees and forty-five degrees give us ninety degrees, one half of the one hundred and eighty degrees of the cue ball we can see. Seems to be some logic percolating.

Then we can take thirty degrees. Thirty and thirty gives us sixty degrees, doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

Simple truth, if we are the authority as all people teaching are, at least to their students at the moment, we can define things any way we please. If the definition forms a basis for a logical "whole" it can work, best way or not.

I have been over the experimental side of research enough that I like a form follows function approach rather than trying to force function to follow a theory of form which may or may not be correct.

By the way, I like your post. A simple question which if sincere can lead to communication. I do accept it as sincere.

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I like your post. A simple question which if sincere can lead to communication. I do accept it as sincere.

Thanks, it is sincere - your way of defining “hit” isn’t my way, but I doubt that difference affects our play and they each make sense in their way.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

Thanks, it is sincere - your way of defining “hit” isn’t my way, but I doubt that difference affects our play and they each make sense in their way.

pj
chgo

pj, it has been many years since I have tried to define hit, probably over fifty. Once I mentally built the backside of the cue ball where it contacts the object ball bringing the contact point on the cue ball in contact with the contact point opposite the pocket on the object ball has been my goal.

It might be a matter of degrees but I no longer think about things at that level. My goal is for every shot in an inning to flow together into one continuous motion. Being more focused on the numbers would take the flow out of an inning.

Hu

 

[Poolmanis]

I read where Bob said a lot of players thought a halfball shot was 45°. I think that's because, due to the shooter's skewed perspective of the shot, a 30° cut shot looks closer to 45°.

Here's an example. This is a 30° cut, but it sure doesn't look like it from behind the cb.View attachment 764039

I would argue it looks hair thicker than half ball for me. Hard to say unless see is cue over side pocket or not..