ehemm.. I think i've reached the point where I just take the shot subconsciously and the ball just goes in 
all I have to worry about is position.
all I have to worry about is position.
What do you aim at?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Fred,Fred Agnir said:
I'm pretty sure I can understand you exactly now. And yes, I wish I could get on a table and experiment now. But actually, I believe I can work out most things off the table.
In the drawing below, I show why the deviation at different distances differ.
For the close cue ball 1, it would be near impossible to make the shot unless you bridged basically at the ball or started the original alignment from much further left.
The more distant Cue Ball 2 shows a much longer pivot point for the same alignment.
I suggest that you guys are making some major re-alignments subconsciously to compensate for these variations.
As you said, you have just 3 cue ball aim points but that cannot compensate for the myriad of minor angle adjustments for really acurate play at various angles and distances.
Study the diagram and tell me what you think.
Attachments
Fred Agnir said:
I think what you are proposing with 'front hand english' is a better way for players to make that compensation from moving their alignment from contact point to ghost ball center, which is really what this system is all about.
And I mean for center ball shots, not just english.
1. Align from the cue stick, through the center of the cue ball to the contact point of the object ball.
2. If it is a 45 degree cut to the left, then tilt/slide the bridge hand 1 tip left and re-align cue stick to the center of the cue ball. Hit along that line and it should be pretty close.
This method, like the one you proposed will work the same way, but I think it is less complicated.
I don't propose this as the best aiming system, but it should work just as well as the system. Both systems will be satisfactory for about 80% of shots. ie. Medium length, non severe angles.
For very long or very short shots with larger angles, some compensation will be needed.
S
sonia
Guest
Tempest In A Teapot
FIRST, WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I AM ATTACKING YOUR AIMING SYSTEM? MY POST WAS WAS ALL ABOUT THE FACT THAT IN MY PLAYING AND AIMING, I CAN NOT HANDLE CONTACT POINTS. WHY WOULD THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU? I DO NOT KNOW YOU OR YOUR AIMING SYSTEM. WHAT LIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I DO NOT EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME.
YOU MENTION BAD MOUTHING? TO WHO DID I DO THAT? CERTAINLY NOT YOU, I DO NOT WHO YOU ARE. THIS WOHLE POST IS RIDICULOUS.
HAL
Joe T said:
FIRST, WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I AM ATTACKING YOUR AIMING SYSTEM? MY POST WAS WAS ALL ABOUT THE FACT THAT IN MY PLAYING AND AIMING, I CAN NOT HANDLE CONTACT POINTS. WHY WOULD THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU? I DO NOT KNOW YOU OR YOUR AIMING SYSTEM. WHAT LIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I DO NOT EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME.
YOU MENTION BAD MOUTHING? TO WHO DID I DO THAT? CERTAINLY NOT YOU, I DO NOT WHO YOU ARE. THIS WOHLE POST IS RIDICULOUS.
HAL
JoeT: I don't usually click on banner ads, but I clicked on yours the other night and I'm glad I did.
I wish I could stroke as straight as you do in your demo videos.
Your third eye thingy is neat. My wife has a real problem aiming at the center of the cueball. I must have a similar problem, since the cueball ends up with unintended spin on many shots. Can't tell if I'm swooping or just bad alignment.
I also like your aiming demo. You have a great explanation on determining the contact point on the cueball. I've been playing pool for forty years, and I never realized that this point is on a line parallel to the path of the object ball to the pocket.
Then, you simplify it with the numbers. Match the numbers, and you have contact point to contact point.
If you haven't already, watch the demos at joetucker.net
I wish I could stroke as straight as you do in your demo videos.
Your third eye thingy is neat. My wife has a real problem aiming at the center of the cueball. I must have a similar problem, since the cueball ends up with unintended spin on many shots. Can't tell if I'm swooping or just bad alignment.
I also like your aiming demo. You have a great explanation on determining the contact point on the cueball. I've been playing pool for forty years, and I never realized that this point is on a line parallel to the path of the object ball to the pocket.
Then, you simplify it with the numbers. Match the numbers, and you have contact point to contact point.
If you haven't already, watch the demos at joetucker.net
Center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball. On this example the object ball will hit the end rail at approximately position 'A' missing the shot by at least 1 foot.
START(
%Aq5M6%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pm1P2%Qs3I9%UY9L3%VS9I6
%Wp5N6%Xf6S6%eB0a4
)END
Center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball on this lesser cut over cuts the shot to position 'A' missing the shot by about 8 inches.
START(
%Ah7L3%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pe4N3%Qo3A9%UY9L3%VS9I6
%Wg8M4%X_8P7%eB0a4
)END
On this one cut angle it does work.
START(
%Am1J9%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pe5N4%Qs5B1%UY9L3%VS9I6
%Wl0L1%X_8P7%eB0a4
)END
Shots can be from 0 degrees through about 88 degrees. Depending on the size of the pocket and how far away the object ball is from the pocket, aiming through the center of the cue ball toward the edge of the object ball only works at most about 10 percent of these angles.
Drivermaker this "aiming the center of the cue ball toward the edge of the object ball" is what I said was stupid. And it is. I didn't say that Hal's system was stupid. You all are saying that Hal's system works so I'm assuming that this isn't it because this doesn't work. It doesn't even come close to working.
Fred's system sounds a little more feasible. He is talking about a contact point. I use back hand enghish and I think I might understand what he is saying. I don't think it works in all cases but could be used as a reference. What I don't like about it is using english on every shot. I try to use english on as few shots as possible.
START(
%Aq5M6%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pm1P2%Qs3I9%UY9L3%VS9I6
%Wp5N6%Xf6S6%eB0a4
)END
Center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball on this lesser cut over cuts the shot to position 'A' missing the shot by about 8 inches.
START(
%Ah7L3%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pe4N3%Qo3A9%UY9L3%VS9I6
%Wg8M4%X_8P7%eB0a4
)END
On this one cut angle it does work.
START(
%Am1J9%CJ5O4%GK6N8%JK6M5%LJ5N2%OJ5M0%Pe5N4%Qs5B1%UY9L3%VS9I6
%Wl0L1%X_8P7%eB0a4
)END
Shots can be from 0 degrees through about 88 degrees. Depending on the size of the pocket and how far away the object ball is from the pocket, aiming through the center of the cue ball toward the edge of the object ball only works at most about 10 percent of these angles.
Drivermaker this "aiming the center of the cue ball toward the edge of the object ball" is what I said was stupid. And it is. I didn't say that Hal's system was stupid. You all are saying that Hal's system works so I'm assuming that this isn't it because this doesn't work. It doesn't even come close to working.
Fred's system sounds a little more feasible. He is talking about a contact point. I use back hand enghish and I think I might understand what he is saying. I don't think it works in all cases but could be used as a reference. What I don't like about it is using english on every shot. I try to use english on as few shots as possible.
drivermaker
Banned
CaptainJR said:
And this is exactly why I said that YOU are stupid. You're assuming a center to edge CONTACT. Who said anything about that? You, as usual, (like many others have) continue to go off in a half-cocked lame brain fashion without understanding the REST of the system. It's only an initial ball to ball VISUAL alignment, not the cue alignment or where the ball will be struck or how it will be struck.
You can draw as many diagrams as you want until you're blue in the face to try to disprove it...and you WILL based on WHAT you know. From your perspective it doesn't make sense and won't work, and you're correct. However, you're f*#kin' clueless about the rest of it that DOES make it work.
And NO, I'm not telling. Call Hal. Actually, I'm going to call Hal and tell him if you call to hang up on your dumb ass.
drivermaker
Banned
CaptainJR said:
I think you had more than one person in mind. When you make a direct comment and my name "Drivermaker" is in your post, sure seems otherwise.
Drink some coffee and snap out of it.
CaptainJR said:
I finally had the pleasure of speaking with Hal a couple of days ago, and even if he hadnt explained any of the systems I would have been glad I made the call. He was very interesting to speak with, as are most of the people that have been around this game as long as he has. The center to edge does work, if you apply the entire system. At first I thought I would be best suited for one of the other systems but the more I mess with this one the more I think it may be the one I like.
I havent posted much about talking to Hal yet because I wanted to give the systems a couple of days to see if they worked for me, but I will tell you my initial impresion is I wish I had talked with Hal along time ago. I have been playing pretty well lately so I didnt know if Hal would really help me or not, but I think he has.
Woody
drivermaker
Banned
CaptainJR said:
What in the hell is wrong with you? Did you have an ischemic stroke this morning? MY NAME is in the post of yours that I quoted. YOUR mention of my name is copied in the box above my post. If I was referring to the post you made to BRKNRUN, I would have highlighted it, not the other one.
You may have read that Hal's system has more to it than just that...but then you turn right around making a case of why center to edged DOES NOT work by illustrating diagrams and saying that it's just stupid to think it does.
Seriously, go get checked out by a DR. this morning. You're talking out of your ass.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Colin Colenso said:
Then we are at an impasse. No way can you work things out off the table. If working things out on paper worked, then we'd never have to shoot a single shot, we'd simply draw out a ghost ball, hand it to our opponent and say, "there you go, I would make this shot like this. You lose."
This is a very result orientationg game. I've been saying all along that there is an optics issue in aiming. You are drawing things geometrically correct in 2D. The world is 3D with real optical issues.
You cannot work out this system on paper. You are just giving yourself false proof. If this was simply a case of disproving this system geometrically on paper, as a degreed engineer, I would have abandoned these systems before taking a single shot. But I didn't, and I would think the results should speak for themselves. Balls go in the hole, and my opponents are calling me a great shotmaker, something I simply have never been.
I really don't need to see another diagram. You won't be the first nor the last to try those diagrams. Diagrams decieve what is reality. Wouldn't you rather see it on a table?
Fred
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
CaptainJR said:
I don't use english on every shot. I pivot using back hand english in order to get to the center ball. If the shot requires center ball, I shoot center ball. Back hand english is only the pivot, not the stroke.
Fred
drivermaker
Banned
Fred Agnir said:
Fred...IMO you totally blew it. Yes, you learned from the Master...but you didn't learn enough. As soon as you try to put it down in writing as you have, every math major in geometry, trig, calculus...every physics geek and rocket scientist, or Coriolis devotee is going to try to tell you why it DOESN'T work or won't work. It's not worth the responses and time explaining it.
Let them call and be at a table...fuck 'em. (remember when you were a science geek and challenged everything?)
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Well, you're right. But, if it weren't for threads like this, I'd have no reason to even post on these boards.drivermaker said:
Besides, the more I post about it, the more it gets ingrained into me. And, the great responses I get offline are worth it.This is really what gets me. I just request that people try it. If it didn't work for them, that's all that needs to be said. Not "it won't work for me because the diagram I show."Let them call and be at a table...fuck 'em. (remember when you were a science geek and challenged everything?)
And part of the my challenging everything is having the decency to do the testing on a table, under fire, under the gun. I wish all my science peers who play this great game would grant me the same.
Fred
Joe T
Well-known member
JohnnyP said:
Thanks for the nice post Johnny,
One regret I have is not putting enough recommendation of using the 3rd Eye Stroke Trainer off the table in the video. Whether you have a table or not. Use the 3rd Eye to develope a straighter Stroke without hitting balls first. Even if you have to use a plastic cup on the old ironing board or something similar, take about 100 stroke on your normal stroking hand then switch to do 50 on your opposite hand and keep switching back and forth, Then hit balls with it.
If you have a short bridge that brings the tip all the back into your bridge hand this will cause the attachment to hit your bridge hand, we don't want that. So set up to the ball as you normally would, keep everything still except your bridge hand, slide your bridge hand back by bending at the elbow, about 2-4 inches should be enough but keep everything else still. That way you'll be able to use your normal stroke in your normal stance.
Good Luck and Thanks again
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Colin Colenso said:
Let's just say for S & G that you're correct, and furthermore assume that it's actually a conscious adjustment rather than a subconscious one. Given the finite point aiming system, and the fact that I (and I ain't the only one, brother) can shoot blind back cuts and other typically difficult pots with this beautiful system under fire, under tournament conditions, under heinously tight pockets, what's the downside?
That it isn't traditional? That it isn't ghost ball? That people might actually start to pocket more balls? That they'll lose their posting priveleges?
Under fire is the most important aspect in any of these systems (banking, aiming, and position play systems). I've been putting mine to the test. It works.
Fred
Colin Colenso said:
Colin,
I've been told the same thing many times... this won't work! You must be making compensations, BUT when I teach 3 lines, or Small Ball or Pivot, or Shiskabob or whatever, I have something that I do to convince them before they even start talking "compensation". I have a metal frame, made from an old clothing rack, that has a curtain hanging from it. I put this frame across the table so that the curtain is just an inch or two in front of the footstring. The curtain is just high enough off of the table that the ball can pass under it without interference, but there's NO WAY I can see the side pockets or the far corner pockets. I then put a ball just anywhere near the footspot and the cue ball just anywhere behind it towards the foot rail... then, I let the students call my shots... cuts to any of the upper 4 pockets, which I cannot see because of the curtain, or long rail banks back to the corners that I can see. Now, there is no way I can compensate if I can't see the target. Compensation is not necessary... neither is hypnosis, which I've been accused of! LOL
I cannot explain this on paper. Like Fred, I'm a degreed engineer and I did my level best to disprove the validity of these systems when I first learned them... well, I could do it on paper, but I just never could NOT make them work on the table. It's like Fred said, you have to take it to the table to see how it works.
Quoting Nelsi O'Hare, from an Article in the July 1995 issue of Pool and Billiards Magazine, on How the Pro's Aim.
Now, if Efren Reyes teaches people to aim on only the 4 quarters of the object ball, then there just might be something to it... seems I heard he plays a pretty fair game of pool!
Later,
Bob
OK ding bat, here it is. I don't really give a shit if you like it or not.
Your left this after the break.
START(
%Aa9G2%BI5N5%C]5D2%Di0X2%E\8W3%FI0G9%GB4[9%Ht3B7%IU0E3%Pl8G2
%WD2Z9%X`5H0
)END
No '1/4 or 1/8 etc.' of the 'cue ball or object ball' type of approximations are going to work. You may accidentally make the shot, but to make it on purpose you had better be right on the contact point because there is no room for error or approximations on this shot.
If you're learning the game, a system like this could get you started but to say that it is a substitute for eventually learning how to use the contact points or playing enough to be able to feel the exact angle of a cut is ridiculous.
Every great player does this. Of course there could be an exception but I've never seen one match on TV or in person that at some point the player didn't walk around behind an object ball and take a look. When they are left a tough shot, they walk around to behind the object ball and look at the shot. What are they looking at when they walk around there? They are looking at the path to the pocket and the corresponding contact point. They could possibly use something like your talking about to check and make sure their feeling isn't way off, but they are not going to count on any approximations. They are going to use the contact point or feel to get the exact angle.
This EXACT angle that is needed on tough shots is not something that just comes to you all of a sudden. You have to practice it over and over again. So you practice getting the EXACT angle (not approximations) on all the easy shots, then hopefully when a tough one comes along, you've got it.
That's what I think. If you don't like it you can certainly say you don't like it. I'm no pro but I play well enough and know the game well enough that several people on here have came up to me at events and said thank you for helping them. As far as I know I can come on here and say what ever I think as long as I don't start cussing people out all the time.
Your left this after the break.
START(
%Aa9G2%BI5N5%C]5D2%Di0X2%E\8W3%FI0G9%GB4[9%Ht3B7%IU0E3%Pl8G2
%WD2Z9%X`5H0
)END
No '1/4 or 1/8 etc.' of the 'cue ball or object ball' type of approximations are going to work. You may accidentally make the shot, but to make it on purpose you had better be right on the contact point because there is no room for error or approximations on this shot.
If you're learning the game, a system like this could get you started but to say that it is a substitute for eventually learning how to use the contact points or playing enough to be able to feel the exact angle of a cut is ridiculous.
Every great player does this. Of course there could be an exception but I've never seen one match on TV or in person that at some point the player didn't walk around behind an object ball and take a look. When they are left a tough shot, they walk around to behind the object ball and look at the shot. What are they looking at when they walk around there? They are looking at the path to the pocket and the corresponding contact point. They could possibly use something like your talking about to check and make sure their feeling isn't way off, but they are not going to count on any approximations. They are going to use the contact point or feel to get the exact angle.
This EXACT angle that is needed on tough shots is not something that just comes to you all of a sudden. You have to practice it over and over again. So you practice getting the EXACT angle (not approximations) on all the easy shots, then hopefully when a tough one comes along, you've got it.
That's what I think. If you don't like it you can certainly say you don't like it. I'm no pro but I play well enough and know the game well enough that several people on here have came up to me at events and said thank you for helping them. As far as I know I can come on here and say what ever I think as long as I don't start cussing people out all the time.