[BilliardsAbout]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

Nope. Maybe you don't know the reference: "He can't tell the difference between $#!T and Shinola." In this reference, "Shinola" is not the luxury goods company that was founded about a decade ago, but rather refers to a brand of "shoe polish" which is a waxy substance people used to rub on their shoes back when shoes were made of leather in order to make them look better and to protect them from the elements. Here is an example excellent product from the company:

Attachment 553320

How soon will all the shoe shine stands disappear now that Shinola is gone?

I suppose the reference could be transferred now to the new company since it seems to sell high-quality goods.

Thank you. I was thinking "shinola" meant "okay but shined up to make look better than it is". I do not know the name for the "closest points" system.

[West Point 1987]

Thanks for this...to answer the OP, I don't know who's book this is from or what it's called, but I'm so glad I tripped over this. I tried it last night, and it worked very well for me--on all angles and distances. I'm sure I unconsciously compensated on various angles, but for me it fixed an alignment issue that was making me hit everything too fat months now. I tried for a long time to fix it mechanically by adjusting my stance and shoulder angle, to no avail. This technique straightened me right out!

[Bob Jewett]

In fact the cut angle on the 2 ball is 75 degrees. This is easy to measure with a protractor or the drawing system I use for these diagrams. Here is the correct way to line the shot up on the 2 ball. Instead of sending the red dot on the cue ball at the red dot on the object ball (nearest to farthest), you should send the green dot on the cue ball towards the red dot on the 2 ball.



Line A and line B are parallel and go through the centers of their respective balls. Sending green to red is the same system shown in Mosconi's second book and in Byrne, and in .... It sends contact point towards contact point.

Let's do a thought experiment. This is much easier than doing a real experiment especially since some of us don't have access to tables right now.

Consider the shot on the 2 ball. Move the cue ball and the 2 ball together away from the pocket along the A and B lines, moving each ball the same amount. The cut angle will remain the same -- 75 degrees. If you don't believe this, make a drawing and measure it.

A better way to do the thought experiment which is much harder to do on the real table is to just move the pocket away along the A line without moving either ball. If you do that instead, I hope it is immediately clear to you that the cut angle doesn't change. Please get comfortable with the fact that the cut angle doesn't change and Mosconi's system still tells you to drive the green dot at the red dot before reading on.

Good. Mosconi's system is staying constant for a constant cut angle (but with increasing distance to the pocket) but what is happening to the nearest-to-farthest system? As the pocket gets farther away, the red dot on the cue ball will move around the cue ball towards the green dot. If you don't believe this, draw out a diagram with a few new locations of the pocket along the A line.

This means that as the pocket gets farther away, the nearest-to-farthest system gives less error on the cut angle. Unfortunately, the pocket is farther away, so you likely miss the shot by more and more distance even though the angle is getting better. When the pocket is infinitely far away, the two systems give the same, correct answer. Such a large table is not practical.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by West Point 1987

Thanks for this...to answer the OP, I don't know who's book this is from or what it's called, but I'm so glad I tripped over this. I tried it last night, and it worked very well for me--on all angles and distances. I'm sure I unconsciously compensated on various angles, but for me it fixed an alignment issue that was making me hit everything too fat months now. I tried for a long time to fix it mechanically by adjusting my stance and shoulder angle, to no avail. This technique straightened me right out!

Well, no, I don't think so. As I pointed out in the response just above, as the shot is longer with the same relationship between the cue ball and 2 ball, the red dot will move on the cue ball. If you actually use the system, it can't work over a range of pocket distances.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong in the way you see shots if a totally broken and wrong system makes you shoot better. Maybe the system is so broken that your subconscious takes over and puts the ball in the hole.

[Vorpal Cue]

I can see how moving the balls as a 'block' down table will increase the accuracy, but if you move the cue ball farther away along the center to center line the accuracy will decrease.

I'm pretty sure all the posters considered the latter and not the former.

[duckie]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

In fact the cut angle on the 2 ball is 75 degrees. This is easy to measure with a protractor or the drawing system I use for these diagrams. Here is the correct way to line the shot up on the 2 ball. Instead of sending the red dot on the cue ball at the red dot on the object ball (nearest to farthest), you should send the green dot on the cue ball towards the red dot on the 2 ball.

Attachment 553418

Line A and line B are parallel and go through the centers of their respective balls. Sending green to red is the same system shown in Mosconi's second book and in Byrne, and in .... It sends contact point towards contact point.

Let's do a thought experiment. This is much easier than doing a real experiment especially since some of us don't have access to tables right now.

Consider the shot on the 2 ball. Move the cue ball and the 2 ball together away from the pocket along the A and B lines, moving each object ball the same amount. The cut angle will remain the same -- 75 degrees. If you don't believe this, make a drawing and measure it.

A better way to do the thought experiment which is much harder to do on the real table is to just move the pocket away along the A line without moving either ball. If you do that instead, I hope it is immediately clear to you that the cut angle doesn't change. Please get comfortable with the fact that the cut angle doesn't change and Mosconi's system still tells you to drive the green dot at the red dot before reading on.

Good. Mosconi's system is staying constant for a constant cut angle (but with increasing distance to the pocket) but what is happening to the nearest-to-farthest system? As the pocket gets farther away, the red dot on the cue ball will move around the cue ball towards the green dot. If you don't believe this, draw out a diagram with a few new locations of the pocket along the A line.

This means that as the pocket gets farther away, the nearest-to-farthest system gives less error on the cut angle. Unfortunately, the pocket is farther away, so you likely miss the shot by more and more distance even though the angle is getting better. When the pocket is infinitely far away, the two systems give the same, correct answer. Such a large table is not practical.

Never mind, I see my error in thinking......

[sixpack]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

Well, no, I don't think so. As I pointed out in the response just above, as the shot is longer with the same relationship between the cue ball and 2 ball, the red dot will move on the cue ball. If you actually use the system, it can't work over a range of pocket distances.

I think there is something fundamentally wrong in the way you see shots if a totally broken and wrong system makes you shoot better. Maybe the system is so broken that your subconscious takes over and puts the ball in the hole.

There is some ambiguity about when you look at the spot on the CB closest to the pocket. Maybe in some people's mind it the closest point to the pocket at the time the CB contacts the OB. In other words, just a way of visualizing CPTCP. Then it would be helpful for someone who was hitting balls too thick.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by sixpack

There is some ambiguity about when you look at the spot on the CB closest to the pocket. Maybe in some people's mind it the closest point to the pocket at the time the CB contacts the OB. In other words, just a way of visualizing CPTCP. Then it would be helpful for someone who was hitting balls too thick.

If someone interprets the description of the system that way, I think they are reading into the description something that is not there to make it fit reality.

I think there is a lot of that going on when people confront broken systems. "Surely the author was saying ..." No, he wasn't. He really said the broken stuff. And stop calling me Shirley.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by Vorpal Cue

I can see how moving the balls as a 'block' down table will increase the accuracy, ...

It will increase the angle accuracy but I'm not sure it will decrease how many inches you miss the pocket by. I haven't worked that out yet. (And maybe it's not worth working on.)

[sixpack]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

If someone interprets the description of the system that way, I think they are reading into the description something that is not there to make it fit reality.

I think there is a lot of that going on when people confront broken systems. "Surely the author was saying ..." No, he wasn't. He really said the broken stuff. And stop calling me Shirley.

Yeah, I get it. I was just thinking of how when I tried to figure out CTE I was mostly unbiased by the actual system so I invented something that works very well for me. Doesn't work for anyone else...

The biggest flaw with the system you described is that the harder to visualize the shot the worse this system is. Which is the opposite of useful.

[BC21]

Originally Posted by sixpack

.......

The biggest flaw with the system you described is that the harder to visualize the shot the worse this system is. Which is the opposite of useful.

This is so true. Plus it's not accuarte. Even it were accurate, any system that isn't easy to visualize is surely not going to be easy to implement. Of course, after several thousand shots you'll think you're visualizing the system better, but your success will be due to rote, hours upon hours of trial and error, not the system itself.

[Vorpal Cue]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

It will increase the angle accuracy but I'm not sure it will decrease how many inches you miss the pocket by. I haven't worked that out yet. (And maybe it's not worth working on.)

Don't bother, the system will never fit in a Shinola can.

[Kdogster]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

Line A and line B are parallel and go through the centers of their respective balls. Sending green to red is the same system shown in Mosconi's second book and in Byrne, and in .... It sends contact point towards contact point.

I think Mosconi's system is the shinola, because I can say that it can be applied in a practical way at the table, and you don't need to whip out a protractor during the game to make it work.

During the pandemic, I've been spending a lot of time at my home table working on aiming. I sort of organically arrived at the Mosconi system, because I needed a way to see a cut shot in a repeatable way. Yes, one can sort of get a feel for a particular cut shot and practice that feeling enough to cement it, but that's not going to be practical system unless you have oodles of time to play.

Rather than relying on feel, I think the reference points/lines can be seen while you are down on the shot. So, for example, with the 75 degree shot, I have been training myself to visualize the line made by the outside edge of CB intersecting with outside edge of OB in such a way that it sends the OB towards the heart of the pocket.

Here's my aiming routine:

1. [1] imprint the path from OB to heart of pocket in my mind.
   [2] while standing figure out the rough line of the shot by seeing the edges intersect in your head. Once you have the cue line, build your foot work around the cue to get down on the shot.
   [3] while down on the shot, make the micro adjustments. It takes practice to see the outside edge of CB intersect with OB outside edge. You also need to factor in CIT, so you may need to over cut the angle or apply a touch of outside. All of this is done during the micro adjustments. Obviously, you'd have to adjust for left/right english,etc.
   [4] shoot and make it

Observations

• [1] The system works great for cut shots of 30 degrees or more. Less than 30 degrees and it becomes hard to see the edges intersecting in your mind. However, these smaller angle cut shots should be easier to shoot by just feeling the amount of overlap needed to send the OB down the path to heart of pocket. I've also been experimenting with using the CB center (looking at the crest of the ball down on the shot) as a reference point to intersect with OB outside edge.
  [2] The micro adjustments take a ton of concentration. Seeing these lines intersect forces your brain to focus in a different way than you would if you're using a quarter ball system. Early on, after practicing hard for a half hour, my brain would be tired. Now that I've trained myself, I can see the lines intersecting very easily.
  [3] I find seeing the edge on rail shots is quite difficult. Also, when it's a darker ball like the 8 ball, it's not easy to see the edge especially at long distance. I try to sense the edge when it's too hard to see it. This is easier said than done.

I know this. Aiming is hard. Having a system gives you some level of confidence.

[UnintendedEnglish]

Hi,Bob. I'm Matt's Dad from Draw.

I've seen this 'system'. It's a method, really, and even though it's geometry is theoretically flawed (as compared to the much more theoretically correct parallel aiming), it actually, when taken to the table, it works. This is the method I teach my daughter who plays infrequently and lacks the obsessive 'drive to understand' that seems to be a requirement for membership on this forum. I don't mean to sound too snarky because I love pool and truthfully am suffering mightily during this virus lockdown.

I think the reason this method pockets balls is because the object ball - always farther away from the shooter than the cue ball - the object ball looks/appears smaller. (Imagine a cue ball being aimed at a snooker ball). This visual distortion self corrects for this method's geometrical tendency to hit the shot thick.

Going out on an extremely thin limb here....I think this same visual distortion biases people against understanding CTE. In my use of CTE, I forget about angle degrees. In CTE, if CB-OB are close together, a 30* shot angle might require a 45* CTE solution, whereas a 30* shot angle where the CB-OB are far apart (as in a table length shot) might want a 15* CTE solution to pocket the ball.

[Patrick Johnson]

Originally Posted by UnintendedEnglish

I think the reason this method pockets balls is because the object ball - always farther away from the shooter than the cue ball - the object ball looks/appears smaller.

Aiming a point on the CB at a point on the OB - the apparent size difference of the balls shouldn't affect that visual line.

pj
chgo