PDA

View Full Version : Stupid and wrong aiming system-- WORKS!!!???!?!?!



Soflasnapper
04-24-2011, 12:10 PM
So I'm studying up a little on one-pocket, never having played it or able to watch it enough to understand what's going on with any appreciation, thinking it boring, etc.

I got a introductory one-pocket basics dvd from Bert Kinnister, and it had a brief explanation of the most simple aiming system ever. So simple I was sure it couldn't possibly work.

However, taking it to the table showed me it apparently does work (within its stated parameters, at cut angles no greater than 45 degrees).

How simple is it? How wrong is it?

Here's the theory. Aim with the center of the cue tip, through the center of the cue ball, DIRECTLY AT THE CONTACT POINT. (By cueing on the center axis this way, we are not talking any English effects to get this to work, strictly center ball.)

Obviously this cannot work. And oddly, it is the same (alleged) error included in Mosconi's book (which I've widely heard was the work product of the ghost writer without any Mosconi involvement other than putting his name on the book).

What Kinnister said was that IF you can aim and deliver the cue on a line through the cue ball's center axis to the actual contact point, the object ball goes in the hole.

And apparently, for at least many cut angles under the half-ball cut line, this works suspiciously and improbably well.

Didn't believe it, couldn't disprove it, and it seems likely I'll be using it whenever the situation where it works comes up. Bert also mentioned if the cue ball and object ball are close together, this doesn't work that well, even when the cut angle is under 45 degrees.

I think that at a distance, the two opposite curvatures of the balls equal themselves out exactly enough, or approximately enough at least, to where the contact point does get hit, even with this bizarre aim line.

pooltchr
04-24-2011, 12:19 PM
It won't work. Let's take a simple 30 degree cut for example. To cut a ball 30 degrees, the contact point on the object ball, as viewed from behind the cue ball would be half way between the center and the outside edge of the object ball. But, in order to make a 30 degree cut shot, you would actually have to aim through the center of the cue ball to the outside edge of the object ball.

For your theory to work, such standards as ghost ball, or double distance, would be totally wrong.

The only time you can aim through the center of the cue ball toward the contact point is when you have a straight in shot.

On any cut shot, the contact point and the aiming point will be different. This is because, while we aim through the center of the cue ball, the center of the cue ball will never reach the contact point. The outside edge on the equator will always get there first.

Steve

JoeW
04-24-2011, 04:44 PM
I am not at all sure but it may be Bert who posts under the name UnknownPro on AZB. UnknownPro said what you are saying a few years ago and I took him at his word and worked with this idea for several months. I have come to the conclusion that there is no better aiming method (it is not a system) for the serious player. Here is what I did after reading his words of wisdom. First I refer to it as front dead center of the cue ball (the point directly opposite of the cue tip on the front of the cue ball).

Begin with a straight in shot, corner to corner, one diamond off the pockets. Continue shooting this shot until you know, absolutely know, where front dead center is based on the center of the cue tip and the center of the balls. After 30 – 100 shots you simply know where the front dead center is, based on the CB and your stick.

Now move the OB one ball off straight into the corner pocket and shoot directly at the contact point again. You will find that you shoot at the same spot and you will pocket the OB. For my studies I lined up both sides of the numeral "One" on the OB with the center of the corner pocket so I would know exactly where the contact point was located.

Now set the OB two balls off a straight in shot. Now three balls, etc until shooting at the contact point no longer places the ball in the pocket. See how many balls off a straight in shot you can get. I won’t give you my numbers because people laugh at me and they don’t even try it.

After awhile you will find that you can easily estimate how far off the contact point to aim for any shot.

Later still I added English and an off set stick to reduce deflection. However I always know where front dead center is located and where to line up the center of the stick through the center of the ball to the contact point.

All of the usual instructors, authors, and similar people tell me that it can’t work and they are wrong. There is something about the matching curves on CB and OB as well as the eye’s ability to compensate that makes this the unequivocally best aiming method I have ever used.

In the first place you train your eye to know where these places are on the CB using the stick and a known contact point. Later this training is generalized to any shot. Learning Theory (based on psychological principles) suggests that there is no better way to learn a new skill.

I do not know the exact numbers but I would guess that 50% of my shots are at the contact point using front dead center. And now that I know where front dead center is, I use the side of front dead center to pocket all othe shots. Everything is relative to front dead center using the center of the cue stick tip.

Welcome to the club of players who have learned how to reliably aim a cue ball.

pooltchr
04-24-2011, 05:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">as well as the eye’s ability to compensate

And now that I know where front dead center is, I use the side of front dead center to pocket all othe shots. </div></div>

Ok, so your eye has to compensate for the difference between aim point and contact point.

And if you are no longer using "front dead center" for contact with the cue ball, you are compensating again, except using the point on the cue ball rather than the point on the object ball.

There has to be an adjustment somewhere, whether it be on the target, or the other side of the cue ball.

The OP suggested that you can aim at the contact point up to a 45 degree cut, yet we both know that for even a 30 degree cut, the difference between aim point and contact point on the OB is a full quarter ball. If you aim at the contact point, you must adjust somehow, or you will miss the shot.

Steve

JoeW
04-24-2011, 05:42 PM
I no longer try to give numerical estimates Steve. All I can say is that it merits serious study because the brain learns something that is very useful in many ways.

I supect that there is more to the physics of the aiming method that the ides of colliding spheres. It may revolve around the idea that the brain learns to compensate. However, for all of my work with the method all I can say is that it does't feel like compensation until one is many degrees off a straight in shot.

cushioncrawler
04-24-2011, 05:52 PM
I agree 100% with steve.
I just then got a meezel ball and lined up a dot with the pkt and i hit it with a qball from 4 different kut angles and the meezel ball missed by a mile and even missed for an allmost dead straight pot (about 7/8 here).
Something smells fishy -- snapper's deskription must be awry.
Reading tween the lines -- i think snapper and Co think allso that halfball = 45dg, korrekt figure iz 30dg.
mac.

bradb
04-24-2011, 06:04 PM
There are times when I'm lining up an inside spin forward shot, I aim the contact point on the cue ball dead center to the object ball contact point and that allows for the throw of the the cue ball. Buts thats the only time I can think of when I rely on that method.

Maybe you are really just shooting from instinct after years of play. When you come thru on your final forward stroke your brain/muscle memory kicks in and you align back to the proper aiming point.

Once in a power outage I kept on playing in semi darkness and I could'nt even see the aiming point, but on most shots I was still was hitting the ball where I should. I did'nt make as many balls but the aiming point was all instinct. Brad

JoeW
04-24-2011, 09:17 PM
The way to test it is outlined above. It requires serious study to learn where front dead center is located. People try a few shots, have preconcieved notions and conclude it can't work. What can I tell you other than you have to work at it and learn for yourself how it works. First learn where front dead center is located. The actual contact point is about 1/16 to 1/32 of an inch, not the size of the spot on a measels ball.

Once again, I am sorry I said anything, so I will just drop it.

cushioncrawler
04-24-2011, 09:57 PM
Joe -- i dont understand your method.
1. Do u aim (align) the center of the cue and qtip throo the vertical center of the qball every shot??
2. Do u stroke straight throo along that aim-line, every shot???
3. I never think of the other side of the qball for any shot. When thinking of center ball (ie vertical center) i pikture the center of the qball but i dont think of the front or of the center or of the back of the ball, to me the ball iznt 3 dimensional, just 2 dimensional. Why shood one havta think about the back of the qball at all uzing your method??? Why shoodnt it work by just thinking about the center of the front??
mac.

Stretch
04-25-2011, 05:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Joe -- i dont understand your method.
1. Do u aim (align) the center of the cue and qtip throo the vertical center of the qball every shot??
2. Do u stroke straight throo along that aim-line, every shot???
3. I never think of the other side of the qball for any shot. When thinking of center ball (ie vertical center) i pikture the center of the qball but i dont think of the front or of the center or of the back of the ball, to me the ball iznt 3 dimensional, just 2 dimensional. Why shood one havta think about the back of the qball at all uzing your method??? Why shoodnt it work by just thinking about the center of the front??
mac. </div></div>

Mac, i think it is usefull to think of the front of the cue ball as representing the aim line for centre ball hits, and how it relates to the contact piont of the ob when they meet. How one processes this information into an aiming system is what the body does naturaly over time and repetition. Good results is the only yardstick that the mind understands. If it works, it's valid.

Of course in practicle terms this discrepancy between aim line and conatact point is greatly deminished over distance yet the mind still adjusts for this. Visualization is another key element in the minds ability to lock on a target and tell the body how to achieve it at the moment of truth. St.

JJFSTAR
04-25-2011, 07:07 AM
Sounds suspiciously like the “aiming method” that I have used when in dead stroke. Address – look at the contact point – shoot. I don’t know but I will try the “Joe test”.

cushioncrawler
04-25-2011, 07:15 AM
Stretch. When i think about it, i reckon that i hav never ever thort of the aktual balltoball kontakt point for any pot or inoff. Except praps on the odd occasion when experimenting with some idea of some sort praps. But never when aktually playing or praktising.
I dont see why the kontakt point iz important for the player.
All i ever pikture iz one circle partly kovering another circle. I let the balls worry about the kontakt point.

But sometimes i just pikture a dot on the objekt ball, the dot being the aim-line of the cue, ie the center of the qball-circle if i happen to think of a circle instead of a dot.

I often hoik or swoop, which i think iz what Joe duz, and when i hoik i hav an aim-point in mind for my initial aim, and my hoik will of course take the qball somewhere else az planned. For example i might aim halfball but on my forwardswing hoik to kontakt the objektball 1/4 ball, but i never think of the aktual balltoball kontakt point on the qball or on the objekt ball.
Never hav, never will.
But i know there are systems that do.
mac.

Fran Crimi
04-25-2011, 07:51 AM
This sounds like a perfectly viable system. If I understand correctly, this system establishes a very clear reference point for aiming. In this system, the reference point is the center of the CB in relation to the pocket. It sounds like there's a pivoting of the cue stick since you're stepping into your stance, lining up one way, but then changing the position of your cue stick, however slight.

I think there are a lot of aiming systems that can work, as long as a reference point is established and adhered to by the player.

Regarding how far you can go to pocket a ball that is off-angle without changing your aim point is interesting, but it would be affected by such variables as pocket size, distance to the pocket, cloth, balls, etc. --- But again, it's all about having an established reference point to start with.

Whenever I look at a new aiming system, the first question I ask myself is if there is a clear and simple way of finding the reference point. If it's too complicated for me, I don't go any further. I'm not a huge fan of adjusting your aim when down on a shot, but I know a lot of players do it that way. I kind of like to make all my decisions while standing, whenever possible.

Bambu
04-25-2011, 09:23 AM
I shoot with an old pro who swears by this method. I told him his system wasnt geometrically correct, but he insisted I try anyway. At first I was surprised, I fired a few balls in. Then I went home and proved to myself on paper, that this would be impossible.

Still not convinced it didnt work, I kept on trying for a few months. I fiddled around with cuetable, to see how close the contact points were(surprisingly close for many shots). The whole experience felt alot like using cte, but maybe thats only because it was new to me.

In the end my personal opinion is that it does work, but has limitations. The less of a cut, and the closer the distance, the more accurate the system is. (Though I suppose this can be said of any method.)

The only other thing I can add is that for some shots beyond a half ball hit, or shots that seem to require more of a cut: You can use the inner edge of your shaft as a guide(instead of center shaft). This gives you a second aiming reference point, one where you can cut the ball a little more. Not sure if you do that too Joe, but it might help. Is it 100%? No, no system is(IMHO). But this would be one of the easier methods to learn, and particularly easy to teach to a beginner.

bradb
04-25-2011, 09:53 AM
Joe, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are explaining. I went in and tried shooting center to center and I found that for me it works ok for angles up to about 15 Deg. Beyond that the ball consistantly undercuts and the more the angle the more the ball came up wide.

Does'nt the line going from the pocket to the back of the object ball and the line through the Qball to the front of the Qball have to allow for the thickness of the two objects when they intersect? When on an angle the balls will collide before the center points do.

I believe (my opinion only and that with 4 bucks will get you a latte,) that every player has their own way of adjusting for the difference depending on how they learned to aim. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Brad

JoeW
04-25-2011, 12:29 PM
Yes Brad the contact point ison the OB as seen from the back of the OB to the center of the pocket.

I very much agree with Fran. The beauty of this approach is in the establishment of reference points. Allowing your brain to learn where FDC (front dead center) is located is the reference point for all other shots. On cuts with more angle to them I aim FDC past the contact point. Of most importance to me is the idea that my brain knows where FDC is and it knows what part of the CB will strike the OB and where it will strike the OB.

FDC as an aiming reference point has its limits. However, when you play around with it for awhile you will find that the limits are not what a geometric analyis leads one to believe. It has more generality and can be used to pocket many more shots than is thought. However, this ability to use FDC comes with experience.

There are several variables at work including permissible error, the width of the pockets, learning to use a very small reference point (ala Jeanette Lee) and then learning to use the center of the cue stick as well as the side of the front tip in some situations as Bambu poits out.

All of it begins with learning FDC and coming to know what part of the CB is going to strike the OB.

One of the side benefits is training the brain to find the contact point on the OB and the line of travel to the pocket. I call this the "nine inch nail" line that sticks out about 1.25 inches (CB radius) as seen from the back of the OB to the center of the pocket. The actual contact point is on the ball so this is not Ghost ball aming.

It is not an easy method to learn and it takes considerable effort and much mental training but it is, as Fran notes, an excellent reference system because it is based on the reality of what part of the CB hits the OB and where it strikes the OB.

JoeW
04-25-2011, 12:36 PM
BTW Brad if FDC works up to 15 degrees for you this is a 30 degree window wherein you can very confidently use FDC.

With experience and over length of table shots I think you will find that you can exceed the 15 degrees you found and that you will quickly learn to compensate for the under cut because you will also very quickly learn how much it "always" under cuts and therefore you know how much you need to compensate. I found these to be very reliable adjustments that resulted in a high level of confidence that a shot was going to result in a pocketed ball.

Though the window is not all that big it becomes much larger when you learn "exactly" how much to compensate.

pooltchr
04-25-2011, 01:00 PM
Now you are starting to get things back to what I was saying. FDC is a good reference point, but in fact, FDC is only going to contact the OB on a straight in shot. FDC can not contact the OB on any cut shot.
That was my point. When we aim through the vertical center of the cue ball, our cue stick will automatically be aligned through FDC. And since FDC only contacts the OB on a straight in shot, there must be some adjustment made for cut shots.
It doesn't matter whether the adjustment is calculated on the CB or the OB, as long as it is the proper adjustment.
This is the concept behind Joe Tucker's aiming system. The contact point of the CB will be the same distance from center, only on the opposite side. (7 always contacts 7, 3 always contacts 3, etc) The only place 0 (FDC) can contact an OB is at 0.
If you are aiming at the OB contact point, you have to be doing it with the corresponding contact point on the CB.

Steve

Fran Crimi
04-25-2011, 01:22 PM
Interesting that you mentioned an old pro because I was taught a similar way by an old pro as well. Rather than cte, though it was more of a swipe stroke. It was all the rage back in the '80s. Top 9-ball players were lining up center to pocket, and then swiping all over the place. You'd go to a tournament back then and it looked like everyone had steering problems, but they were getting the job done.

JoeW
04-25-2011, 01:26 PM
If it can only make contact on a straight on shot how is it that Brad (and me) can use it when 15 degrees off a straight in shot? I suspect that Brad has little experience with the method and yet he found that FDC works over more than a straight in shot.

My guess is that you would think it is all compensation. I would suggest that you work with it for awhile and see what happens. I learned some new things when I made a serious attempt to find out what happens when using FDC and consistently aiming at the contact point from various places and over various distances. Perhaps Bert Kinnister and UnknownPro do not know what they are talking about. However, when I took their ideas seriously I learned some new things about how to aim a cue ball.

BTW I think the angle can be wider than Brad reports but that is more a matter of experience. In addition, using FDC on length of table shots the window is larger, much larger. I guess you would have to work with it for awhile or be content with your knowledge.

I suspect that one of the physics guys could work out the following problem. With a 1/16th aim point (and line) in which the OB is two feet off a 5.25 inch wide pocket and the CB is four feet away from the OB what is the permissible error for striking the contact point and pocketing the OB? How many degrees can the CB be off a straight in shot and within the permissible error still pocket the OB.

pooltchr
04-25-2011, 02:05 PM
I will agree that there is room for error on every shot, due to the fact that the pocket is at least twice as wide as the ball.

But beyond that margin for error, there absolutely must be some compensation for greater or lessor cut angles. You can not aim at the same place on the object ball and expect it to work for any shot within 15 degrees.

If you aim at the same point, you will get the same cut angle every time. If there isn't some kind of compensation going on, you are going to be missing shots.

Let's go back to my original example of a 30 degree cut. I suspect you would aim through the middle of the cue ball, right through FDC and on to the edge of the object ball. But the contact point is actually half way between center and the edge of the object ball. If you aim at that contact point through center and FDC, the result is going to be about a 15 degree cut, which is probably going to miss the pocket.

Steve

wolfdancer
04-25-2011, 04:42 PM
I had all of Bert's video's.....but redeemed them for a book of green stamps.(I think it took 10 video's to get a full book?) /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Bert has some very useful info, but just too much hype, imo.
Hal Houle invented the 1/2 ball aiming system, and with some slight adjustments, I still use it today....
Hal showed it to many of us at the pool hall....I don't think he "converted" any of the A +++ players, but it sure helped a lot of us that were struggling.
I think the advantage of it is that you see angles and not spots,
and nowadays, with my not so good eyesight....I'm seeming too many "spots" already.
One pocket should have some great appeal for you, as it is a "thinking man's" game. If 9-ball is "checkers, one pocket is "chess"
If you search around the 'net, you can find many good one pocket matches...

cushioncrawler
04-25-2011, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it can only make contact on a straight on shot how is it that Brad (and me) can use it when 15 degrees off a straight in shot?.....</div></div>Joe -- even with Qball say 18" from Oball i kan get a 1/4ball kut angle when initially aiming 1/2ball -- its all in the hoik/swoop.
And/or, if u uze fronthandpivot or backhandpivot "after aiming" but before shooting, then the skys the limit.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, when I took their ideas seriously I learned some new things about how to aim a cue ball.......</div></div>I spent about 4 hours today potting the red into a corner pkt with the red on the center spot on my 12' table -- red to pkt = say 1974mm -- pkt size on that angle iz 72mm.
Most of this 4 hrs woz on straight pots -- with Qball 300mm to 1000mm from red.
I woz very inkonsistent. I revizited nearly every style of stroke that i hav ever had -- but at best it iz a 50/50 shot with me. A snooker pro would get it i suppoze over 9 in 10.
What i need iz a good konsistent stroke -- but i am allso thinking that aim (for straight-in shots) iz more important than some players think. Most think that aim iz important for kuts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suspect that one of the physics guys could work out the following problem. With a 1/16th aim point (and line) in which the OB is two feet off a 5.25 inch wide pocket and the CB is four feet away from the OB what is the permissible error for striking the contact point and pocketing the OB? How many degrees can the CB be off a straight in shot and within the permissible error still pocket the OB.</div></div>Joe -- Yesterday i spent about 7 hrs working on margin for error for potting. Koz i am writing a book that i will call SNILLIARDS. Its about uzing snooker skills (21 balls) to play english billiards (3 balls).
This week i hav been working on a chapter that i might call MARGIN FOR ERROR.

Most of the 7hrs woz spent drawing on my computer. I woz drawing reds being fired into 4 korner-pkts and into 2 mid-pkts with the reds sitting on the 6 standard spots on a billiards/snooker table -- and with the Qball sitting at varyus distances from red -- yesterday every drawing woz for a straight-in shot.

So, instead of being like Dr Dave and uzing math -- mac iz an expert at uzing drawing, ie simple geometry.

I revizited Koehler's work, and prooved (again) that hiz theory that the most diffikult pozzy for the Oball iz halfway to the hole iz korrekt, which we all know anyhow.

A pot iz eezyr if u place the Qball kloser to the Oball, or if u place the Oball kloser to the pkt. Anyhow i kalkulated that the margin for error for a pot red off The Spot (ie a pot black off the black spot in snooker) with Qball 400mm from the red woz 0.27dg left and 0.27dg right, ie a total margin of 0.54dg.
I call this pot my standard pot, and this diffikulty/ margin (ie 0.27dg) my standard diffikulty.
Anyhow i drew every possible straight pot to every possible pkt (6) from every spot (6). And for eech of theze (36) i drew the Qball the equivalent standard dist from the red, ie if eezyr than the pot off The Spot i drew it further than 400mm, and if more diffikult i drew it kloser than 400mm, the exakt dist being kalkulated by drawing and geometry and akurat to praps 1mm.
Not that this sort of info iz of much direkt help to a player, but all info will help somehow.
mac.

cushioncrawler
04-25-2011, 06:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suspect that one of the physics guys could work out the following problem. With a 1/16th aim point (and line) in which the OB is two feet off a 5.25 inch wide pocket and the CB is four feet away from the OB what is the permissible error for striking the contact point and pocketing the OB? How many degrees can the CB be off a straight in shot and within the permissible error still pocket the OB.</div></div>Joe -- I looked up Koehler. Hiz table 4-1 (pge 48) sez that for 24" to cnr-pkt and 48" to Oball the permissible error for a straight-in shot iz 0.48dg. This meens 0.24dg left of center, and 0.24dg right.
Koehler duznt appear to say what this 0.48dg meens in terms of 1/16ths divisions or in terms of inches at the Oball. I will work theze out myself, i will return.

Koehler somewhere sez that the pot iz most diffikult if u pick up the Oball and place it halfway to the pkt, which iz korrekt. Plus he sez that that 24" pot from 48" haz the same permissible error az a 48" pot from 24", ie 0.48dg. My drawings agree, alltho my drawings are pure geometry, whereaz Koehler i think iz real world, ie Koehler inkloods friktion and throw etc, i dont.

In fakt yesterday my geometry showed that the equation for degree of diffikult and permissible error and margin for error woz az follows.
DOD = PE = MFE = 4(x-x^2).
Where x = distance to Oball in 1/8ths.
If Oball iz halfway tween the Qball and the pkt then x=4/8ths, and DOD = 16/16ths (ie 1.00), ie halfway iz the most diffikult pozzy for the Oball (ie 1.00 iz the max).

If Oball iz 1/4 way to pkt, then DOD = 12/16ths (ie 3/4 az diffikult az halfway). And 1/4 way to pkt haz the same DOD az 3/4 way to pkt.

If Oball iz 1/8 way to pkt then DOD = 28/64ths (ie 7/16ths az diffikult az halfway). And 1/8 way to pkt haz same DOD az 7/8th way to pkt.

Koehler (and others) say that kut shots demand more akuracy than straight-in. I dont entirely agree, and i will hav something to say about this later. Koehler allso inkloods figures for cut shots, Figure 4-9 (pge 49). Az i say, i dont agree with this.
mac

wolfdancer
04-25-2011, 06:55 PM
Mac, drink more Red Wine, and things will become even clearer!!!
Snooker was the hardest pool game I ever played. I can't see 12 ft down the table....I did have a good idea though once....I tried sighting with a builder's transit, thought I was really on to something and then the BCA found out about it, and quashed the idea.
xx (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3OquI-nzrs&feature=player_detailpage)

cushioncrawler
04-25-2011, 07:03 PM
But not before i do thems 2nd storey windows.
A 12' table iz diffikult, if the pkts are proper pkts -- tight az a fishes rectum.
mac.

cushioncrawler
04-25-2011, 07:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I'm studying up a little on one-pocket, never having played it or able to watch it enough to understand what's going on with any appreciation, thinking it boring, etc.

I got a introductory one-pocket basics dvd from Bert Kinnister, and it had a brief explanation of the most simple aiming system ever. So simple I was sure it couldn't possibly work.

However, taking it to the table showed me it apparently does work (within its stated parameters, at cut angles no greater than 45 degrees).

How simple is it? How wrong is it?

Here's the theory. Aim with the center of the cue tip, through the center of the cue ball, DIRECTLY AT THE CONTACT POINT. (By cueing on the center axis this way, we are not talking any English effects to get this to work, strictly center ball.)

Obviously this cannot work. And oddly, it is the same (alleged) error included in Mosconi's book (which I've widely heard was the work product of the ghost writer without any Mosconi involvement other than putting his name on the book).

What Kinnister said was that IF you can aim and deliver the cue on a line through the cue ball's center axis to the actual contact point, the object ball goes in the hole.

And apparently, for at least many cut angles under the half-ball cut line, this works suspiciously and improbably well.

Didn't believe it, couldn't disprove it, and it seems likely I'll be using it whenever the situation where it works comes up. Bert also mentioned if the cue ball and object ball are close together, this doesn't work that well, even when the cut angle is under 45 degrees.

I think that at a distance, the two opposite curvatures of the balls equal themselves out exactly enough, or approximately enough at least, to where the contact point does get hit, even with this bizarre aim line.</div></div>snap -- ok it works for one-pkt, but what about the other 5 pkts!!!!!!

The thing about proper real aiming iz that it works for any and all ranges tween Qball and Oball.
When i check to see whether a pot iz true halfball or praps whether a bit thicker or thinner, at no stage do i havta think about range to Oball, unless i start messing about with stun etc.

Not forgetting that there iz no such thing az a halfball angle. Every halfball angle looks different to every other halfball angle. Koz we dont see the angle, we see the Qball the Oball and the pkt, and our brain invents the associated halfball angle. Our brain learns the infinite halfball combinations found on a table, or at least it shood, but duznt, life iz too short. Consequently range tween Qball and Oball duz affekt my perception, and sometimes my thinking even, so here i am now kontradikting myself, but u know what i meen.
mac.

wolfdancer
04-25-2011, 11:25 PM
and that they was...they were so tight we had to wax the balls to allow them to slide in....that was my job at the room..."wax on/right hand<s> wha</s> wax off, left hand"

JoeW
04-26-2011, 06:27 AM
Mac said, "Not forgetting that there iz no such thing az a halfball angle. Every halfball angle looks different to every other halfball angle. Koz we dont see the angle, we see the Qball the Oball and the pkt, and our brain invents the associated halfball angle."

It is for this reason that I think that the player is better off learning to see a contact point including the line to the pocket. The player needs to know what portion of the CB will strike the OB and FDC is the reference point for these estimations. I guess you would have to say that overlapping balls (two dimensional sighting)looks different from different places.

1/2 degree of permissible error is not a great deal of wiggle room with 1/16 or 1/32 width line but it is useful when the eye has learned to "see" the lines.

I think that Kohler's wrote a good text and I was one of the early reviewers of it. I think he even included my comments on the back cover. So there is another contradiction for you.

For me empiricisim rules. I do not know what the psychological principles are behind the use of FDC other than as a well learned referece point that in some way helps the brain to calculate a shot. It may be that simple compensation and the emphasis on a heightened awarness of the lines of travel and where these lines meet is the root of the ability to reliably make balls. The brain is able to make and use equisite distinctions that are not well understood. I suspect that people in human factors research such as the military and their need to enhance a person's ability to aim may have a better understanding of what is going on under these circumstances.

For now, I know it works and have no need to delve into the science of it -- but I would bet that it is there.

bradb
04-26-2011, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and that they was...they were so tight we had to wax the balls to allow them to slide in....that was my job at the room..."wax on/right hand<s> wha</s> wax off, left hand" </div></div>

"Well played grasshopper!"

Soflasnapper
04-26-2011, 03:20 PM
Thanks for all comments, questions and theories.

I think perhaps Bert did mean a half ball line when he said 45 degrees, as somebody suggested, even though that is more correctly called a 30 degree or 31 degree cut angle.

I do not think I've 'made' this work (to the degree it does work for me) by compensation of line or spin (although I'm probably lining up exactly on my normal line, which is supposed to work when I aim 'correctly,' which I do more or less now with my feet and alignment of my head and body).

wolfdancer
04-26-2011, 04:14 PM
I think Jack Koehler wrote a superior book to Bert's on one pocket.
When I first saw the game being played, it was on 10 ft tables, with tight pockets. I also got to see Ronnie Allen play the game....
Jack (Jersey Red) Breit told it like it is (or was), he said; " With plastic balls, Ronnie Allen is the greatest one pocket player of all time." ...

cushioncrawler
04-26-2011, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mac said, "Not forgetting that there iz no such thing az a halfball angle. Every halfball angle looks different to every other halfball angle. Koz we dont see the angle, we see the Qball the Oball and the pkt, and our brain invents the associated halfball angle."</div></div>Yes, i know the qball's 1/2ball and 3/4ball and 1/4ball deflexion angles probly better than anyone on earth, but i still hav trouble with allovem if u put the qball on a side cush and ask me to go inoff into the corner on the same side of the table, even if the needed angle iz a natural.
I hav redd the same thing on this forum, where u guys mention the diffikulty of kutting an Oball "back" into the corner, if u havnt praktised that sort of shot much.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is for this reason that I think that the player is better off learning to see a contact point including the line to the pocket. The player needs to know what portion of the CB will strike the OB and FDC is the reference point for these estimations. I guess you would have to say that overlapping balls (two dimensional sighting)looks different from different places.</div></div>Me, myself, i dont understand why anyone uzes an aiming system that involves estimation of 2 or 3 things, and involves 2 or 3 kompensations or pivots or something, when simple potting involves one estimation, with no needed kompensations except for the kompensations needed for chronic vizion and stroke problems.

Which makes me think, on a 9' table, aiming systems are for players who are too lazy (or something) to learn to shoot straight.
Aiming systems are to billiardists what diets are to fat people. Fat people are looking for an eezy fix. Lazyness.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1/2 degree of permissible error is not a great deal of wiggle room with 1/16 or 1/32 width line but it is useful when the eye has learned to "see" the lines.</div></div>I am thinking that a 12' table iz different. On a 12' table u kan say set the Oball on one of the 6 spots, and make a mark for the pozzy of the Qball, and play a pot into one of the 6 pockets, and play this shot over and over, ie untill u know what aim iz needed (no matter what system u uze), and then u will of a sudden miss 2 shots in succession. Koz, on a 12' table akuracy of stroke iz paramount.
Which raises the question in my mind -- if the pkts on a 9' table are so eezy, why o why do i hear so much about aiming systems????
With 12' table, i hav i think never ever heard one word about aiming systems. Not one word, excepting praps the times i hav raised the subjekt, at which times i hav never been able to get any interest from anyone.

What u do hear near a 12' table, iz --
...... What do u do to stroke so akuratly and konsistently????
...... Hey, mac, how far iz my elbow sticking in or out????
...... Hav u tryd standing more square-on, it iz working for me.
Not one word about aiming systems.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that Kohler's wrote a good text and I was one of the early reviewers of it. I think he even included my comments on the back cover. So there is another contradiction for you.</div></div>Joe -- I just then had a look throo Koehler's The Science Of Pocket Billiards, and i think i hear u in the chapter Mind And Body on pge 218.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me empiricisim rules. I do not know what the psychological principles are behind the use of FDC other than as a well learned referece point that in some way helps the brain to calculate a shot. It may be that simple compensation and the emphasis on a heightened awarness of the lines of travel and where these lines meet is the root of the ability to reliably make balls. The brain is able to make and use equisite distinctions that are not well understood. I suspect that people in human factors research such as the military and their need to enhance a person's ability to aim may have a better understanding of what is going on under these circumstances.</div></div>Agreed. In fakt i would go further. I reckon that there iz even more imagineering etc involved in a straight-in-shot than in a kut-shot. A straight shot needs more learning than any other shot.
In fakt, i think that a straight-in shot iz so diffikult, that many players never learn. Or putting it another way, they learn to disregard what they see, and aim somewhere else, or make some sort of compensation. Koz, if they simply followed what they kood see, they would miss more often than not.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For now, I know it works and have no need to delve into the science of it -- but I would bet that it is there.</div></div>I am thinking that in a way science might hurt most players, but players like mac benefit i think.
mac.

JoeW
04-26-2011, 06:52 PM
For the record, FDC is not an aiming system. It is merely a way to "see" the relationship between CB,OB and the pocket.

Sev
04-26-2011, 07:15 PM
Hey boys I'll get John Barton and Patrick Johnson over here to explain CTE to you.

wolfdancer
04-26-2011, 07:25 PM
Thanks for the offer, but I've had the best instructors, and the best players show me that. They also explained back hand English.
I worked p.t. in a few pool rooms after I retired.

cushioncrawler
04-26-2011, 07:33 PM
In a way i uze such a system when the Oball iz a long way from Qball. But what i do iz i aim deadcenter on Oball, and hoik/swoop say left to get say 3/4 ball kontakt.
I hav a way of hoiking lots, or just a little -- its pretty akurat. I kan get a 1/2 ball of angle eezy at longish range, more even.
But for me hoiking to the right iz diffikult. I havta sort of lift the stick kompletely off my bridge, and i havta start my hoik very early on in the forwardswing, even so i karnt get az much az when to the left.
At long range hoiking iz powerfull. At short range it iz usefull if u karnt be bothered making that little re-aim that u decide that iz needed when down on the shot.
A bit of pivot duz the same trick az a hoik, and pivot iz possibly more konsistent (probly depends on your cue and your tip).
mac.

cushioncrawler
04-26-2011, 07:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey boys I'll get John Barton and Patrick Johnson over here to explain CTE to you.</div></div>I read AZB occasionally, and i must say that i agree with every word that patrick haz written on every subjekt, especially on CTE systems.
I remember back when patrick woz given a hard time on this forum, he claimed to be an alien if i remember aright.
mac.

wolfdancer
04-26-2011, 07:46 PM
Mac...NOT THE PATRICK???????
The one that was playing pool on computers????????
Tell Sev for me....thanks, but no thanks

cushioncrawler
04-26-2011, 07:54 PM
Yes the patrick. He claimed to be from space. He makes a lot of sense nowadays, ie we see eye-to-eye, except that he haz 111 eyes i think. I think i asked him once which woz hiz dominant eye, and he had to hold hiz finger (he only haz one finger but he haz 5 hands) in front of hiz 111 eyes one at a time, and when he had finished, he sayd "i forget".
mac.

wolfdancer
04-27-2011, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if u put the qball on a side cush and ask me to go inoff into the corner on the same side of the table, even if the needed angle iz a natural. </div></div>
I am a grandmaster of the "inoff"...unfortunately it does not score well in 8 or 9, ball.
At the infamous Palace Billiards in SF, the 12 ft table had action 24/7 (the room never closed at the time)

cushioncrawler
04-27-2011, 04:42 PM
Didnt Capone hav a 12', ie at home.
mac.

wolfdancer
04-27-2011, 05:32 PM
Which one...Al?

cushioncrawler
04-28-2011, 06:34 AM
Yes Al. Its now in england.
mac.

wolfdancer
04-28-2011, 02:53 PM
Actually, I think it was Dillinger that was reputed to have a 12

cushioncrawler
04-28-2011, 04:34 PM
I hav a 6' in storage under the house in the studio. The studio iz big enuff for two 12's end to end. Thusly i kood hav three 12's and would be eligible to hav my own 6 woman/man team in the melbourne billiards league, plus one little 6' pool table on the side.
In fakt the 6' table iz one slate offa 12' ie it iz 1/4 of a proper 12', with the proper legs and rails and pockets, so in fakt i kood hav 3 1/4 twelve footers. Just dreaming.
mac.

cushioncrawler
04-28-2011, 04:51 PM
...... Horseshoe Billiards
The owner, Jerry Fredrickson, is a local billiards icon having been in the billiards business since 1985 when he retired as a Captain from the Duluth Fire Department. After more than 20 years in the business Jerry has a long list of achievements in the billiards industry. He has owned a number of upscale parlors in the region and along the way he evolved into one of the leading experts of antique pool tables in the country.

Many of the tables Jerry has restored and sold all over the United States have fascinating historical significance. He once owned a table that belonged to Al Capone and sold it for more than $50,000. Another table that was played on by General Custer 2 weeks before the Battle of Little Bighorn was sold locally to a well known Duluth plastic surgeon. Jerry has about 50 antique tables awaiting restoration at any given time. In addition, Horseshoe sells new tables, pool cues and billiard supplies as well as service work on tables and cues.

williamd2
06-29-2011, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It may be that simple compensation and the emphasis on a heightened awarness of the lines of travel and where these lines meet is the root of the ability to reliably make balls. The brain is able to make and use equisite distinctions that are not well understood. </div></div>

As do some others, I also agree on this point,and will add that my own feeling is the "heightened awarness" is possibly the most important component at work here.

Although I do not make use of any "aiming system" that I am consciously aware of, getting myself to make use of closer attention always pays off.

Stroke and subsequent tip to cue ball contact point can easily slip away from our intentions when we become complacent about our pre shot setup and shot mechanics.

It seems that many times something new or different produces unexplainable improvement for a while, but again, here, I feel it is more about an elevated attention level than anything else.