Aiming Metrics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
A thought or two about aiming "metrics" and how I think they're universally used in pool with or without a conscious method or system. (I think methods and systems are mostly choices of which metric(s) to use.)

One very important metric I didn't mention in the pic below is the visual perception of the amount of CB/OB overlap (without reference to fractions, etc.). This may be the most common metric, especially for "pure feel" aimers - in fact, I suspect it's an unconscious metric in all aiming.

I'm not advocating for or against any particular metric(s), methods or systems, just exploring the nature of aiming generally.

pj
chgo

View attachment 67902
 

Attachments

  • aiming metrics.jpg
    aiming metrics.jpg
    90.3 KB · Views: 3,351
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
A thought or two about aiming "metrics" and how I think they're universally used in pool with or without a conscious method or system. (I think methods and systems are mostly choices of which metric(s) to use.)

One very important metric I didn't mention in the pic below is the visual perception of the amount of CB/OB overlap (without reference to fractions, etc.). This may be the most common metric, especially for "pure feel" aimers - in fact, I suspect it's an unconscious metric in all aiming.

I'm not advocating for or against any particular metric(s), methods or systems, just exploring the nature of aiming generally.

pj
chgo

View attachment 67902

Excellent stuff. I see the overlaps without referencing any certain fractional aim points. But I believe learning fractional aim points can help a player begin to automatically recognize cb-ob relations/overlaps, to just see the shots.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A thought or two about aiming "metrics" and how I think they're universally used in pool with or without a conscious method or system. (I think methods and systems are mostly choices of which metric(s) to use.)

One very important metric I didn't mention in the pic below is the visual perception of the amount of CB/OB overlap (without reference to fractions, etc.). This may be the most common metric, especially for "pure feel" aimers - in fact, I suspect it's an unconscious metric in all aiming.

I'm not advocating for or against any particular metric(s), methods or systems, just exploring the nature of aiming generally.

pj
chgo

View attachment 67902


Hater. (Just want you to feel at home :)

Lou Figueroa
welcome back, Pat
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Excellent stuff. I see the overlaps without referencing any certain fractional aim points. But I believe learning fractional aim points can help a player begin to automatically recognize cb-ob relations/overlaps, to just see the shots.
Thanks, Brian. I’m familiar with Poolology - interesting stuff.

pj
chgo
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In my opinion if there is any unconscious visual alignment going on I’d think players are doing the double the distance aiming method, except instead of using it to line up where to aim the center of the cueball or aim the edge of the cueball, it’s done to line up cueball contact point to object ball contact point. I think that’s what the EYES are looking for when you are standing up away from the table before stepping into the shot.

Of course that’s different than what the MIND is looking for when either standing up or down on the shot looking down the barrel of the cue. I think aiming systems are about the mind. Feel is about the eyes and memory.

But that’s just an opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
In my opinion if there is any unconscious visual alignment going on I’d think players are doing the double the distance aiming method, except instead of using it to line up where to aim the center of the cueball or aim the edge of the cueball, it’s done to line up cueball contact point to object ball contact point. I think that’s what the EYES are looking for when you are standing up away from the table before stepping into the shot.

Of course that’s different than what the MIND is looking for when either standing up or down on the shot looking down the barrel of the cue. I think aiming systems are about the mind. Feel is about the eyes and memory.

But that’s just an opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I think any "metric" can be used either consciously or unconsciously (or both) - I believe our subconscious "supercomputer" does the real aiming, and it probably draws on all the info you have to give it, whether you mean to or not. That's why it's beneficial to learn how things work.

pj
chgo
 

BilliardsAbout

BondFanEvents.com
Silver Member
Welcome back, PJ.

Yes, I think overlap or "thickness" is big idea for many players, the more so if they want to sight on as much of a real object as possible, as compared to an edge or a ghost spot.
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
The diagrams show the 'edge of shaft to contact point' method posted recently in the forum quite well too. Also there's some aiming systems that use a spot on the table bed or shadows cast by the balls. All aiming systems reduce to the same result.

Thanks for the diagram. It would be clearer by eliminating the overhead light reflections on the balls though, imho.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The diagrams show the 'edge of shaft to contact point' method posted recently in the forum quite well too. Also there's some aiming systems that use a spot on the table bed or shadows cast by the balls. All aiming systems reduce to the same result.



Thanks for the diagram. It would be clearer by eliminating the overhead light reflections on the balls though, imho.



This article has some good diagrams for those.

https://www.pooldawg.com/article/pooldawg-library/what-the-fck-are-you-looking-at-a-guide-to-aim


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What is it called, or does one of your diagrams fit:

A visual memory of what the overlap is when addressing the CB and OB (while not mentally labeling as fractions) but it includes all curve/squirt/throw/etc effects. In other words it’s not any actual contact point, because the CB is doing crazy dances on its way to the OB.

<==
That’s what this feel player believes he does.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Yes, I think overlap or "thickness" is big idea for many players, the more so if they want to sight on as much of a real object as possible, as compared to an edge or a ghost spot.
I think way too much is made of the supposed "objectivity" of some metrics over others.

Just making sense of our binocular view of the world occupies a major part of our brains (the visual cortex). Add precisely aligning 3-dimensional spheres at varying distances in 3-dimensional space, from an overhead view, and you're in another world of complexity.

I believe every CB/OB alignment, even one as obvious as center to edge, is a learned interpretation of complex visual data, not a "rifle sights" visual alignment of physical elements. Our metrics are highly interpretive, but they're all we have as guides to estimate the specific precise alignment that creates any specific precise cut angle- it's pretty clear to me that our subconscious supercomputers are driving and we're riding shotgun trying to be helpful.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
What is it called, or does one of your diagrams fit:

A visual memory of what the overlap is when addressing the CB and OB (while not mentally labeling as fractions) but it includes all curve/squirt/throw/etc effects. In other words it’s not any actual contact point, because the CB is doing crazy dances on its way to the OB.

<==
That’s what this feel player believes he does.
How about "overlap including squerve"?

For me it would be "with added squerve" because I start with centerball aim and adjust from there (when I'm being disciplined).

pj
chgo
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I think way too much is made of the supposed "objectivity" of some metrics over others.

Just making sense of our binocular view of the world occupies a major part of our brains (the visual cortex). Add precisely aligning 3-dimensional spheres at varying distances in 3-dimensional space, from an overhead view, and you're in another world of complexity.

I believe every CB/OB alignment, even one as obvious as center to edge, is a learned interpretation of complex visual data, not a "rifle sights" visual alignment of physical elements. Our metrics are highly interpretive, but they're all we have as guides to estimate the specific precise alignment that creates any specific precise cut angle- it's pretty clear to me that our subconscious supercomputers are driving and we're riding shotgun trying to be helpful.

pj
chgo

I've made the point here in the past that aiming is really not spherical, but circular. I mean, for most methods/metrics we use the equators of the balls for aiming and pocketing shots. The top and bottom portions of the OB and CB are irrelevant when it comes to aiming. We could replace spheres with low-friction sliding cylinders or discs and use about every aiming method known to pocket them. This excludes shadow aiming and light aiming of course. It would also exclude visual overlaps, considering the fact that no visual portion of the OB disc would be hidden/overlapped by the cb disc. What are your thoughts on this?

I only bring this up because I think we often over-complicate aiming by viewing it as a spherical 3D process rather than a simple 2D process where two circles collide. I agree that we are highly interpretive when learning how to aim, regardless of chosen method, and subjective bias is often mistaken as objectivity.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've made the point here in the past that aiming is really not spherical, but circular. I mean, for most methods/metrics we use the equators of the balls for aiming and pocketing shots. The top and bottom portions of the OB and CB are irrelevant when it comes to aiming. We could replace spheres with low-friction sliding cylinders or discs and use about every aiming method known to pocket them. This excludes shadow aiming and light aiming of course. It would also exclude visual overlaps, considering the fact that no visual portion of the OB disc would be hidden/overlapped by the cb disc. What are your thoughts on this?



I only bring this up because I think we often over-complicate aiming by viewing it as a spherical 3D process rather than a simple 2D process where two circles collide. I agree that we are highly interpretive when learning how to aim, regardless of chosen method, and subjective bias is often mistaken as objectivity.



When I stand behind the shot, I bend my back a little to try to establish an overlap between the balls to assess the alignment. Once I step into the shot and bend down, that overlap is at its greatest. If the balls were floating discs, you’d only see the overlap when down on the shot. For me that’d be a problem because 90% of my aiming occurs while I’m standing up. If they were discs I wouldn’t get that initial overlap in the same way. I agree in the sense that I align my overlaps as if I’ve flattened the spheres into 2D circles and compare points on their equators but I don’t think that works as a visual hack without the way a 3D phenomenon adjusts to 2D in my perception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
When I stand behind the shot, I bend my back a little to try to establish an overlap between the balls to assess the alignment. Once I step into the shot and bend down, that overlap is at its greatest. If the balls were floating discs, you’d only see the overlap when down on the shot. For me that’d be a problem because 90% of my aiming occurs while I’m standing up. If they were discs I wouldn’t get that initial overlap in the same way. I agree in the sense that I align my overlaps as if I’ve flattened the spheres into 2D circles and compare points on their equators but I don’t think that works as a visual hack without the way a 3D phenomenon adjusts to 2D in my perception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I understand. Discs would not have any visual overlappiing. I've experimented shooting with hockey pucks, and I process the aiming in exactly the same manner as using pool balls. But I determine my alignment and aim (where the cb needs to be) while standing up, then when i lower down into the shot I might fine tune and I might not. Works the same with pucks, plates, etc....any round object, for me anyway.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
... aiming is really not spherical, but circular. I mean, for most methods/metrics we use the equators of the balls for aiming and pocketing shots. The top and bottom portions of the OB and CB are irrelevant when it comes to aiming.
A simpler concept, but I don’t think it really simplifies the act of aiming much. Even if we do visualize “equators”, they’re still unmarked on 3D spheres at various distances in 3D space from an overhead binocular view.

Despite that, I think visualizing equators is a good practice, especially if you visualize the OB contact point. But I believe it’s just one of several visualizations the subconscious superimposes simultaneously, probably including both 2D and 3D elements, to compose our “view”.

It’s a way more complex task than we typically realize. The best we can do is feed our subconscious as much relevant data as possible, including, if possible, OB equators, and get out of the way (the hardest part for many).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top