"Aiming Systems" are Junk, DO the Work!

[BC21]

I don't think it takes that long to get the basic visual down. I mean, if you can visualize a ghost ball or contact point, what's so hard?

The thing is that a shot with say (picking a random number here) a 20 degree cut, changes dramatically depending on what you're trying to do with the CB. That's what takes a long time and no aiming system in the world is going to accommodate all the variables in any useable form. (Just in passing, this is also the reason rotation players have such a hard time at 1pocket -- they are shooting shots they "know" with unfamiliar speeds and spins.)

Follow it, draw it, stun it, spin it, drag it... throw in some elevation for a little more fun. How about the speed of the cloth?

Aiming is easy. Executing -- accounting for all the variables -- is not.

Lou Figueroa

I agree with everything you're saying, except for the simplicity of visualizing the ghostball or the contact point on the ob.

I had a conversation with Dr. Cue (Tom Rossman) last month. He's 100% ghostball-minded, as if no other aiming method could ever be useful. I watched him show a few average players how to locate the ghostball center by imagining a piece of chalk turned diagonally with one corner flush on the ob. He had everyone look at the chalk than asked us to draw a straight line on paper the exact length of the chalk, diagonally, from corner to corner. Naturally no one got it exact, and he said this was proof that none of us knew how to aim, because aiming was simply shooting at this exact distance behind the ob on every shot.

This sounded so easy, and I watched the faces of these eager wannabe players light up, as if a great secret had been handed to them. Unfortunately, they won't find themselves suddenly knocking the eyes out of the balls with this secret. That neat little distance, the knowledge of "knowing how to aim", looks different from varying shot angles because the perception is skewed. Unless you're shooting a 90° cut shot, that exact distance is not what you see when you're standing behind the cue ball trying to visualize a ghostball. That's why it takes a long time before your brain starts making it work. Sure, the concept is easy, but the actual execution is not easy, and it's not quick to learn.

Of course, after missing enough shots your brain starts making the necessary adjustments to account for the skewed angle of vision and you finally get better at it. But this whole process of getting better at it requires a good consistent stroke. With a crappy stroke there is no way to develop any feel for good ghostball or contact point aiming. You'd have no clue if your misses are a result of stroke flaws or poor visual guesswork finding that ghostball or contact point.

Manipulating the angles with spin and stun is not difficult once your stroke is working and you know exactly where the straight aim is.

 

[Mkindsv]

So...looking to comment on the original post..."not doing the work"...I am not so sure this is true. Wanting to find an easier way to aim your shots has always been a part of pool. Far back as I can remember there is always that one guy at the pool hall who has it all figured out, never misses...and makes it look like there was no effort involved whatsoever.

Of course people want to skip the work and go straight to being a pro level player. Sadly, I honestly think this holds a lot of players back.

Honestly, I do not see CTE for example, as an aiming system...if I look at all the parts, what is recommended as far as Aiming while up, lining up away from the table, having an offset to one of the three (or5 or 17) perceptions, getting down on your ball then pivoting, or parallel shifting or whatever (excuse me Stan Shuffett if I am not perfect in the description but only using the system as an example) I see this as more of a Pre Shot Routine.

The folks that decide to go down this road are in for a surprise, I would imagine it taking at least a year to three to completely figure out all of the nuances of the system (the parts that are taught...not the ones coming in a book someday that are still stuck in someone's brain), what shots can be made using it...what shots can't be...when you should or shouldn't use another system (ghost ball) for example...when to shoot by experience.

First, I don't care what the system is, you need to develop your stroke. I am certain anyone that goes straight to any "Aiming" system without doing so will never be able to properly execute the system with any type of consistency...I am guessing this is why there are several people I have known in the past few years who have tried differing systems and abandoned them for another...then another, then another...and on and on.

Either way, the people that try these systems are doing exactly what I am doing, working to be a better player. Whether they get there or not is totally up to them. Seriously it is not horribly difficult to know that if you do something over and over, you will get better at it...even if it is CTE, or SAMBA or 90/90 or whatever, a person's brain will make the adjustments to make that system "work" for them.

I actually tried CTE a little bit when I got back into shooting a few years ago. I didn't buy the DVD's, just what was on youtube...I watched all the free videos and I can tell you, being an experienced player it helped me with one particular shot (less than half table thickish cut into a corner) honestly this is the only shot I use it for and I never miss them anymore, ever.

So the systems have merit in that regard...if you can use it for even one bugaboo shot, I can say that studying a whole system to learn one shot may just be MORE work that learning by rote (HAMB).

Personally I have been on a Tor Lowry kick the last 2 years...watching his stuff has made me a much better player, or at least a more consistent player...I consistently runout when I should nowadays, and sometimes when I shouldn't be able to as well.

But when it comes to these systems, buyer beware...you are gonna have to be at a fairly decent level BEFORE you can execute the "system"...and it may just be more work than you think.

 

[stan shuffett]

So...looking to comment on the original post..."not doing the work"...I am not so sure this is true. Wanting to find an easier way to aim your shots has always been a part of pool. Far back as I can remember there is always that one guy at the pool hall who has it all figured out, never misses...and makes it look like there was no effort involved whatsoever.

Of course people want to skip the work and go straight to being a pro level player. Sadly, I honestly think this holds a lot of players back.

Honestly, I do not see CTE for example, as an aiming system...if I look at all the parts, what is recommended as far as Aiming while up, lining up away from the table, having an offset to one of the three (or5 or 17) perceptions, getting down on your ball then pivoting, or parallel shifting or whatever (excuse me Stan Shuffett if I am not perfect in the description but only using the system as an example) I see this as more of a Pre Shot Routine.

The folks that decide to go down this road are in for a surprise, I would imagine it taking at least a year to three to completely figure out all of the nuances of the system (the parts that are taught...not the ones coming in a book someday that are still stuck in someone's brain), what shots can be made using it...what shots can't be...when you should or shouldn't use another system (ghost ball) for example...when to shoot by experience.

First, I don't care what the system is, you need to develop your stroke. I am certain anyone that goes straight to any "Aiming" system without doing so will never be able to properly execute the system with any type of consistency...I am guessing this is why there are several people I have known in the past few years who have tried differing systems and abandoned them for another...then another, then another...and on and on.

Either way, the people that try these systems are doing exactly what I am doing, working to be a better player. Whether they get there or not is totally up to them. Seriously it is not horribly difficult to know that if you do something over and over, you will get better at it...even if it is CTE, or SAMBA or 90/90 or whatever, a person's brain will make the adjustments to make that system "work" for them.

I actually tried CTE a little bit when I got back into shooting a few years ago. I didn't buy the DVD's, just what was on youtube...I watched all the free videos and I can tell you, being an experienced player it helped me with one particular shot (less than half table thickish cut into a corner) honestly this is the only shot I use it for and I never miss them anymore, ever.

So the systems have merit in that regard...if you can use it for even one bugaboo shot, I can say that studying a whole system to learn one shot may just be MORE work that learning by rote (HAMB).

Personally I have been on a Tor Lowry kick the last 2 years...watching his stuff has made me a much better player, or at least a more consistent player...I consistently runout when I should nowadays, and sometimes when I shouldn't be able to as well.

But when it comes to these systems, buyer beware...you are gonna have to be at a fairly decent level BEFORE you can execute the "system"...and it may just be more work than you think.

Your description of CTE is very far off base.
You did get one thing right. It's a lot of work. If a lot of work is not involved I would consider that a red flag.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Mkindsv]

Your description of CTE is very far off base.
You did get one thing right. It's a lot of work. If a lot of work is not involved I would consider that a red flag.

Stan Shuffett

Hence the disclaimer...I even apologized for butchering it in advance...but thanks for pointing that out.

But just for future reference so I don't blow it again...no pivot? No offset??? Doesn't have multiple perceptions??? Don't line up back from the table??

Granted, this was all from the youtube content, but pretty sure I heard these terms in your videos. Of course I was generalizing. I honestly couldn't care either way, my point was about the work involved even in learning a system and the fact that I do not believe a system to be a shortcut in real terms.

 

[stan shuffett]

Hence the disclaimer...I even apologized for butchering it in advance...but thanks for pointing that out.

But just for future reference so I don't blow it again...no pivot? No offset??? Doesn't have multiple perceptions??? Don't line up back from the table??

Granted, this was all from the youtube content, but pretty sure I heard these terms in your videos. Of course I was generalizing. I honestly couldn't care either way, my point was about the work involved even in learning a system and the fact that I do not believe a system to be a shortcut in real terms.

No pivot-just see and align
You said that the offset is to a perception-the offset is to CCB
Sure, there are perceptions
Where to line up? Anywhere from standing to full stance

CTE is a total approach to playing the game....Visually and physically
CTE is not a tool for occasional use.....CTE is full time..It's the way you play.
CTE is see and align.....Its that simple but there is a framework to learn if you want to know how really see the balls and how to correctly align.

Stan Shuffett

 

[lfigueroa]

lou
once again we agree....:wink:
i think if developing players work on the perfect stop shot
then learn how to aim
they will be champions
i think in china
they teach tennis to juniors
where for the first few years they never hit a tennis ball....
just practice their strokes
then when the stroke is like tieing their shoes they move on to htiting a tennis ball and learn how to play

I think I understand what you're saying, Larry.

In Europe I've heard that aspiring 3C players start out playing "the small games" like straight rail. They even have downsized billiard tables to work out on before stepping up to the 10' tables. Pool players could probably benefit from a similar approach.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

As you know I agree that aiming is a minor issue compared to delivering the cue ball where you want it. However, inexperienced players don't know that. They are not really sure whether they missed due to aim or stroke, and often never really know (hence the proliferation of aiming systems). A system (yes I guess it is a system) like Poolology gives that player a foundation to fall back on. Let's say a newbie learns some standard Poolology shots - half ball, 3/4 ball, 1/4 ball, etc. With some practice, he will be confident that he can hit these fractions when he is paying attention. So with the Poolology "cheat sheet" in his back pocket, he is more likely to recognize the problem as a stroke issue rather than having no clue. Knowledge is good.

The other issue is that it takes years before some players start using english. I recall playing on and off since I was a kid, but I clearly remember being in college at the student union thinking about how I really needed to bear down and start paying attention to position play. The point is that new players can go for a very long time before they worry about using english. My intuition says that Poolology will accelerate the learning curve to the point where the player feels confident enough to start on the next phase of the game.

But the problem you describe for inexperienced players -- not knowing why they are missing -- is also a problem for experienced players. And even knowing a system is not going to fix or prevent that.

We all miss simple shots. Shots we feel we "know," that we can execute consistently. And some days, or in certain situations, we miss that very shot. Why, if we know our aiming system and have used our PSR?

What I've observed about new players and english is: they all want to spin the ball from the get-go, which massively complicates things. I think part of that problem is that the average player never picks up a book or watches an instructional video for an explanation of the physics. And even with that knowledge, the blending of all the different factors that come into play on any given shot takes years and thousands of shots to learn how to execute consistently.

One other problem is that players will consciously or unconsciously change their stroke for different types of shots. Who amongst us has not swarped at a ball to put english on the shot or jerked a draw shot? I think the reason we miss many shots are similar though much subtler changes we are unaware of but can ferret out. I think that's what takes a player to a higher level of play.

Lou Figueroa

 

[cookie man]

Cookie asked me an interesting question. He wanted to know why I don't contribute anything positive to this forum. Of course that is not true so I looked up his post history and find little to no positive contribution from him.

.

I guess if you examined my posting history you must have had a guilty conscience.

 

[lfigueroa]

I agree with everything you're saying, except for the simplicity of visualizing the ghostball or the contact point on the ob.

I had a conversation with Dr. Cue (Tom Rossman) last month. He's 100% ghostball-minded, as if no other aiming method could ever be useful. I watched him show a few average players how to locate the ghostball center by imagining a piece of chalk turned diagonally with one corner flush on the ob. He had everyone look at the chalk than asked us to draw a straight line on paper the exact length of the chalk, diagonally, from corner to corner. Naturally no one got it exact, and he said this was proof that none of us knew how to aim, because aiming was simply shooting at this exact distance behind the ob on every shot.

This sounded so easy, and I watched the faces of these eager wannabe players light up, as if a great secret had been handed to them. Unfortunately, they won't find themselves suddenly knocking the eyes out of the balls with this secret. That neat little distance, the knowledge of "knowing how to aim", looks different from varying shot angles because the perception is skewed. Unless you're shooting a 90° cut shot, that exact distance is not what you see when you're standing behind the cue ball trying to visualize a ghostball. That's why it takes a long time before your brain starts making it work. Sure, the concept is easy, but the actual execution is not easy, and it's not quick to learn.

Of course, after missing enough shots your brain starts making the necessary adjustments to account for the skewed angle of vision and you finally get better at it. But this whole process of getting better at it requires a good consistent stroke. With a crappy stroke there is no way to develop any feel for good ghostball or contact point aiming. You'd have no clue if your misses are a result of stroke flaws or poor visual guesswork finding that ghostball or contact point.

Manipulating the angles with spin and stun is not difficult once your stroke is working and you know exactly where the straight aim is.

If I have a student and set up a shot, any shot, and put a little sticky reinforcer on the back side of the OB and say, "the center of that spot is what you're aiming for," who is not going to get that after a few examples?

I believe that after a short while the student is going to be able to visualize and adjust for hitting that spot from all kinds of angles.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Dan White]

But the problem you describe for inexperienced players -- not knowing why they are missing -- is also a problem for experienced players. And even knowing a system is not going to fix or prevent that.

If they are experienced players they SHOULD know that their misses are mostly not from an aiming problem. I'm talking about straightforward shots that don't require compensation for english. I believe even Brian says the goal is not to need to use Poolology eventually. It is just a tool to help the newer player, or the player who needs a tune up, to get there faster.

 

[Dan White]

I guess if you examined my posting history you must have had a guilty conscience.

I don't follow your logic. You accused me of something that is demonstrably not true. Also, I didn't actually have to look up your history. I already knew you were being hypocritical.

Let's just move on, m'kay?

 

[BC21]

If they are experienced players they SHOULD know that their misses are mostly not from an aiming problem. I'm talking about straightforward shots that don't require compensation for english. I believe even Brian says the goal is not to need to use Poolology eventually. It is just a tool to help the newer player, or the player who needs a tune up, to get there faster.

Yes, that is the goal of my book.....to help players become the type that just sees the shots without having to think about anything other than position for the next shot, and in far less time than reaching that level through conventional learning.

I just finished up a Pool Diagnosis using my wife as a student. She is not a pool player, at all. I setup a straight shot into a corner pocket, the OB 28" out and the CB 20" away from the OB. She made 2 out of 30! (Bless her heart!) Figuring her stroke and alignment were too wonky, I moved the CB closer to the OB, right at 10". She then made 26 of 30 shots (87%). Since she knew exactly where to aim, I figure the 4 misses (13%) were due to stroke/alignment flaws. This 87% is her baseline, the best she can do with the fundamentals she's currently working with.

Next, I moved the OB 4 or 5 inches up table to a cut shot, and then explained exactly where the ghostball should be and even put another CB at the back of the OB to temporarily demonstrate the visualization. I showed her how to stand behind the OB and look down the shot line to get an idea where the ghostball center should be on the cloth behind the OB. She pocketed 3 out of 30, or 10%, missing a total of 27 shots. According to her baseline, at this close distance her faulty stroke can send the CB to where she's aiming around 87% of the time. So 4 misses could be chalked up as stroke-related, while the other 23 (85% of total misses) can be attributed to poor guesswork in determining exactly where to aim. In other words, of the 27 missed shots, she missed 15% due to stroke flaws and 85% due to aiming error.

I then told her the cut shot was a 1/4 ball hit. Of course she had no idea what I was talking about. So I put the other CB behind the OB again in the ghostball position. I showed her how, from the shot perspective standing behind the CB, a 1/4 overlap/eclipse of the ghostball and OB could be viewed. Then I removed the ghostball and told her to aim in a manner that would cause the side of the cue shaft to be about 3/10 to a 1/4 inch from the edge of the object ball, explaining that this aim point would produce that 1/4 overlap we want. She went on to pocket 18 of 30 shots (60%). Boy was she excited! Lol!

Once she had a better idea of where to aim, using the edge of the OB as a reference, her pocketing percentage for this particular shot improved by 600%. Considering her lack of solid stroke fundamentals accounted for about 4 missed shots, the other 8 misses were more than likely due to her inability to consistently visualize an accurate 1/4 aim point. Still, knowing exactly where to aim vs guessing/estimating where to aim produced better shot making percentages, which increases confidence and leads to faster learning.

Out of curiosity I had her do 60 more shots, which she didn't mind at all because she was seeing potential. Keeping the CB 10" from the OB, I thickened the angle up a little and asked her to try the ghostball method again. She made 6 of 30. I then showed her that the shot was an exact 1/2 ball aim and showed her exactly where to aim her cue. She made 24 out of 30.

My reason for doing this last round of shots was to make sure her brain wasn't already figuring out the ghostball position, thinking maybe her 1/4 ball shots got better because of that instead of because I showed her exactly where to aim. Anyway, after slighty changing the angle and having her try ghostball again, I knew her brain hadn't clicked onto it yet. Her nailing 24 of 30 once I showed her the 1/2 ball aim, well...to me that proves that knowing where to aim, regardless of faulty stroke mechanics, can really improve shot making skills. It was immediate and obvious results comparing the two learning methods, ghostball vs Poolology. I'm sure a similar comparison using contact points would produce the same outcome, if not even more lopsided.

 

[Dan White]

Yes, that is the goal of my book.....to help players become the type that just sees the shots without having to think about anything other than position for the next shot, and in far less time than reaching that level through conventional learning.

I just finished up a Pool Diagnosis using my wife as a student. She is not a pool player, at all. I setup a straight shot into a corner pocket, the OB 28" out and the CB 20" away from the OB. She made 2 out of 30! (Bless her heart!) Figuring her stroke and alignment were too wonky, I moved the CB closer to the OB, right at 10". She then made 26 of 30 shots (87%). Since she knew exactly where to aim, I figure the 4 misses (13%) were due to stroke/alignment flaws. This 87% is her baseline, the best she can do with the fundamentals she's currently working with.

Next, I moved the OB 4 or 5 inches up table to a cut shot, and then explained exactly where the ghostball should be and even put another CB at the back of the OB to temporarily demonstrate the visualization. I showed her how to stand behind the OB and look down the shot line to get an idea where the ghostball center should be on the cloth behind the OB. She pocketed 3 out of 30, or 10%, missing a total of 27 shots. According to her baseline, at this close distance her faulty stroke can send the CB to where she's aiming around 87% of the time. So 4 misses could be chalked up as stroke-related, while the other 23 (85% of total misses) can be attributed to poor guesswork in determining exactly where to aim. In other words, of the 27 missed shots, she missed 15% due to stroke flaws and 85% due to aiming error.

I then told her the cut shot was a 1/4 ball hit. Of course she had no idea what I was talking about. So I put the other CB behind the OB again in the ghostball position. I showed her how, from the shot perspective standing behind the CB, a 1/4 overlap/eclipse of the ghostball and OB could be viewed. Then I removed the ghostball and told her to aim in a manner that would cause the side of the cue shaft to be about 3/10 to a 1/4 inch from the edge of the object ball, explaining that this aim point would produce that 1/4 overlap we want. She went on to pocket 18 of 30 shots (60%). Boy was she excited! Lol!

Once she had a better idea of where to aim, using the edge of the OB as a reference, her pocketing percentage for this particular shot improved by 600%. Considering her lack of solid stroke fundamentals accounted for about 4 missed shots, the other 8 misses were more than likely due to her inability to consistently visualize an accurate 1/4 aim point. Still, knowing exactly where to aim vs guessing/estimating where to aim produced better shot making percentages, which increases confidence and leads to faster learning.

Out of curiosity I had her do 60 more shots, which she didn't mind at all because she was seeing potential. Keeping the CB 10" from the OB, I thickened the angle up a little and asked her to try the ghostball method again. She made 6 of 30. I then showed her that the shot was an exact 1/2 ball aim and showed her exactly where to aim her cue. She made 24 out of 30.

My reason for doing this last round of shots was to make sure her brain wasn't already figuring out the ghostball position, thinking maybe her 1/4 ball shots got better because of that instead of because I showed her exactly where to aim. Anyway, after slighty changing the angle and having her try ghostball again, I knew her brain hadn't clicked onto it yet. Her nailing 24 of 30 once I showed her the 1/2 ball aim, well...to me that proves that knowing where to aim, regardless of faulty stroke mechanics, can really improve shot making skills. It was immediate and obvious results comparing the two learning methods, ghostball vs Poolology. I'm sure a similar comparison using contact points would produce the same outcome, if not even more lopsided.

Well, this is an enormously interesting result, and one which deserves its own thread. You don't have to be a statistician to know that when the before and after result is so large, that only a small number of trials is necessary to prove the point, which you have done. It was good that you redid the test with a half ball hit, showing that the wife still couldn't hit the broad side of a barn when left to her own devices )) even after having success with your method.

Of course the magic bullet in all this is that the beginner can determine which overlap they need to aim for without knowing anything about pool. You've just proven that knowing the correct fraction is a huge aid for the beginner. When you are not there to tell her which fraction to use, she can use Poolology to figure it out for herself. Hmm, I think I'm starting to smell phase 2 of this trial: Let the wife calculate her own fractions and see how she does. Well, let's say there are probably a lot of different trials you could do with a beginner.

Congrats! Fantastic results!

 

[sixpack]

Yes, that is the goal of my book.....to help players become the type that just sees the shots without having to think about anything other than position for the next shot, and in far less time than reaching that level through conventional learning.

I just finished up a Pool Diagnosis using my wife as a student. She is not a pool player, at all. I setup a straight shot into a corner pocket, the OB 28" out and the CB 20" away from the OB. She made 2 out of 30! (Bless her heart!) Figuring her stroke and alignment were too wonky, I moved the CB closer to the OB, right at 10". She then made 26 of 30 shots (87%). Since she knew exactly where to aim, I figure the 4 misses (13%) were due to stroke/alignment flaws. This 87% is her baseline, the best she can do with the fundamentals she's currently working with.

Next, I moved the OB 4 or 5 inches up table to a cut shot, and then explained exactly where the ghostball should be and even put another CB at the back of the OB to temporarily demonstrate the visualization. I showed her how to stand behind the OB and look down the shot line to get an idea where the ghostball center should be on the cloth behind the OB. She pocketed 3 out of 30, or 10%, missing a total of 27 shots. According to her baseline, at this close distance her faulty stroke can send the CB to where she's aiming around 87% of the time. So 4 misses could be chalked up as stroke-related, while the other 23 (85% of total misses) can be attributed to poor guesswork in determining exactly where to aim. In other words, of the 27 missed shots, she missed 15% due to stroke flaws and 85% due to aiming error.

I then told her the cut shot was a 1/4 ball hit. Of course she had no idea what I was talking about. So I put the other CB behind the OB again in the ghostball position. I showed her how, from the shot perspective standing behind the CB, a 1/4 overlap/eclipse of the ghostball and OB could be viewed. Then I removed the ghostball and told her to aim in a manner that would cause the side of the cue shaft to be about 3/10 to a 1/4 inch from the edge of the object ball, explaining that this aim point would produce that 1/4 overlap we want. She went on to pocket 18 of 30 shots (60%). Boy was she excited! Lol!

Once she had a better idea of where to aim, using the edge of the OB as a reference, her pocketing percentage for this particular shot improved by 600%. Considering her lack of solid stroke fundamentals accounted for about 4 missed shots, the other 8 misses were more than likely due to her inability to consistently visualize an accurate 1/4 aim point. Still, knowing exactly where to aim vs guessing/estimating where to aim produced better shot making percentages, which increases confidence and leads to faster learning.

Out of curiosity I had her do 60 more shots, which she didn't mind at all because she was seeing potential. Keeping the CB 10" from the OB, I thickened the angle up a little and asked her to try the ghostball method again. She made 6 of 30. I then showed her that the shot was an exact 1/2 ball aim and showed her exactly where to aim her cue. She made 24 out of 30.

My reason for doing this last round of shots was to make sure her brain wasn't already figuring out the ghostball position, thinking maybe her 1/4 ball shots got better because of that instead of because I showed her exactly where to aim. Anyway, after slighty changing the angle and having her try ghostball again, I knew her brain hadn't clicked onto it yet. Her nailing 24 of 30 once I showed her the 1/2 ball aim, well...to me that proves that knowing where to aim, regardless of faulty stroke mechanics, can really improve shot making skills. It was immediate and obvious results comparing the two learning methods, ghostball vs Poolology. I'm sure a similar comparison using contact points would produce the same outcome, if not even more lopsided.

Interesting and not surprising to me. I've never bought into the theory that most shots are missed from bad stroke and not from bad aim.

If that were true, players would miss straight in shots as often as they miss cut shots of similar length. They just don't. At any level of player.

 

[lfigueroa]

If they are experienced players they SHOULD know that their misses are mostly not from an aiming problem. I'm talking about straightforward shots that don't require compensation for english. I believe even Brian says the goal is not to need to use Poolology eventually. It is just a tool to help the newer player, or the player who needs a tune up, to get there faster.

I guess I'm just a troglodyte because I don't get any of that.

Players do not always know why they missed. If we knew, we'd fix it and never miss.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Yes, that is the goal of my book.....to help players become the type that just sees the shots without having to think about anything other than position for the next shot, and in far less time than reaching that level through conventional learning.

I just finished up a Pool Diagnosis using my wife as a student. She is not a pool player, at all. I setup a straight shot into a corner pocket, the OB 28" out and the CB 20" away from the OB. She made 2 out of 30! (Bless her heart!) Figuring her stroke and alignment were too wonky, I moved the CB closer to the OB, right at 10". She then made 26 of 30 shots (87%). Since she knew exactly where to aim, I figure the 4 misses (13%) were due to stroke/alignment flaws. This 87% is her baseline, the best she can do with the fundamentals she's currently working with.

Next, I moved the OB 4 or 5 inches up table to a cut shot, and then explained exactly where the ghostball should be and even put another CB at the back of the OB to temporarily demonstrate the visualization. I showed her how to stand behind the OB and look down the shot line to get an idea where the ghostball center should be on the cloth behind the OB. She pocketed 3 out of 30, or 10%, missing a total of 27 shots. According to her baseline, at this close distance her faulty stroke can send the CB to where she's aiming around 87% of the time. So 4 misses could be chalked up as stroke-related, while the other 23 (85% of total misses) can be attributed to poor guesswork in determining exactly where to aim. In other words, of the 27 missed shots, she missed 15% due to stroke flaws and 85% due to aiming error.

I then told her the cut shot was a 1/4 ball hit. Of course she had no idea what I was talking about. So I put the other CB behind the OB again in the ghostball position. I showed her how, from the shot perspective standing behind the CB, a 1/4 overlap/eclipse of the ghostball and OB could be viewed. Then I removed the ghostball and told her to aim in a manner that would cause the side of the cue shaft to be about 3/10 to a 1/4 inch from the edge of the object ball, explaining that this aim point would produce that 1/4 overlap we want. She went on to pocket 18 of 30 shots (60%). Boy was she excited! Lol!

Once she had a better idea of where to aim, using the edge of the OB as a reference, her pocketing percentage for this particular shot improved by 600%. Considering her lack of solid stroke fundamentals accounted for about 4 missed shots, the other 8 misses were more than likely due to her inability to consistently visualize an accurate 1/4 aim point. Still, knowing exactly where to aim vs guessing/estimating where to aim produced better shot making percentages, which increases confidence and leads to faster learning.

Out of curiosity I had her do 60 more shots, which she didn't mind at all because she was seeing potential. Keeping the CB 10" from the OB, I thickened the angle up a little and asked her to try the ghostball method again. She made 6 of 30. I then showed her that the shot was an exact 1/2 ball aim and showed her exactly where to aim her cue. She made 24 out of 30.

My reason for doing this last round of shots was to make sure her brain wasn't already figuring out the ghostball position, thinking maybe her 1/4 ball shots got better because of that instead of because I showed her exactly where to aim. Anyway, after slighty changing the angle and having her try ghostball again, I knew her brain hadn't clicked onto it yet. Her nailing 24 of 30 once I showed her the 1/2 ball aim, well...to me that proves that knowing where to aim, regardless of faulty stroke mechanics, can really improve shot making skills. It was immediate and obvious results comparing the two learning methods, ghostball vs Poolology. I'm sure a similar comparison using contact points would produce the same outcome, if not even more lopsided.

Never a John Barton around when you need one, lol. John was always talking about making a bet, taking a couple of beginners and seeing how they'd do with two varying approaches to aiming.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Dan White]

I guess I'm just a troglodyte because I don't get any of that.

Players do not always know why they missed. If we knew, we'd fix it and never miss.

Lou Figueroa

I don't think I hardly ever aim wrong and you probably don't, either. (When I say "aim" I'm talking about identifying the correct line for the cue ball to take in order to hit the contact point). So at least you know you probably aimed correctly. However, just because you know why you missed does NOT mean you can fix it. I mean, first of all just REALLY knowing why you missed is complicated. Use the 3 year old method: The ball missed the pocket to the left. Why? Because the cue ball hit it to the right of center. Why? Because I hit the cue ball left of center and it squirted to the right. Why? I didn't draw the cue straight back. I drew it too far away from my body (assume righty). Why? Because the shot looked on when it really wasn't. Why? Because my back foot was in the wrong position and caused my eyes to be in the wrong spot. I could go on forever like this.

But, even assuming you know exactly what is going wrong, fixing that isn't always straightforward as you know.

I think we pretty much agree. I'm just saying that Poolology quickens the learning curve and I think Brian's recent wife test proves the point.

 

[Dan White]

Never a John Barton around when you need one, lol. John was always talking about making a bet, taking a couple of beginners and seeing how they'd do with two varying approaches to aiming.

Lou Figueroa

The problem was always that the method whose name shall not be spoken had a learning curve in itself so that such tests with beginners became problematic. With Poolology, it's pretty cut and dried. Simple to compare.

 

[BC21]

If I have a student and set up a shot, any shot, and put a little sticky reinforcer on the back side of the OB and say, "the center of that spot is what you're aiming for," who is not going to get that after a few examples?

I believe that after a short while the student is going to be able to visualize and adjust for hitting that spot from all kinds of angles.

Lou Figueroa

As long as you keep placing the sticky mark on the OB the student will always know exactly where to aim, as long the sticky is in the right place. But it's not practical to mark the spot on every shot. When you remove the sticky and the student has to visualize the spot, it'll take a few thousand shots before they really start to get it.

My whole point with aiming systems is that if a system allows the player to know exactly where to aim, the player will pocket a greater percentage of those thousands of shots, which will allow him/her to develop a feel for it much quicker. This doesn't apply to systems that require tons of shots just to get it working. I mean, if you work everyday for a month or two before finally understanding how your aiming system works, you probably could've already improved using ghostball or contact points throughout this same time period.

I believe that's what you're saying, and I agree with that conclusion. But I don't believe all aiming systems can be lumped into that category.

 

[lfigueroa]

I don't think I hardly ever aim wrong and you probably don't, either. (When I say "aim" I'm talking about identifying the correct line for the cue ball to take in order to hit the contact point). So at least you know you probably aimed correctly. However, just because you know why you missed does NOT mean you can fix it. I mean, first of all just REALLY knowing why you missed is complicated. Use the 3 year old method: The ball missed the pocket to the left. Why? Because the cue ball hit it to the right of center. Why? Because I hit the cue ball left of center and it squirted to the right. Why? I didn't draw the cue straight back. I drew it too far away from my body (assume righty). Why? Because the shot looked on when it really wasn't. Why? Because my back foot was in the wrong position and caused my eyes to be in the wrong spot. I could go on forever like this.

But, even assuming you know exactly what is going wrong, fixing that isn't always straightforward as you know.

I think we pretty much agree. I'm just saying that Poolology quickens the learning curve and I think Brian's recent wife test proves the point.

I completely agree: knowing why you missed does not mean you can diagnose and fix it easily because often the reason is buried somewhere in your setup. At least that's what I've figured out in my pursuits. However, given time and the right approach I think you can figure out quite a bit.

Lou Figueroa