"Aiming Systems" are Junk, DO the Work!

[Dan White]

Just depends on how much electric you use. 200 miles would be about 30 minutes. I went to San Diego in January. a 1100 mile journey each way. Took me about 2 hours to charge up along the way each way. 4 hours (for free) versus $400 in gasoline for the typical nice car. I'm retired, so I'll take the 4 hours.

Yeah, this is a problem they are going to have to solve before electric vehicles will ever become mainstream, IMO. I've heard that there are some revolutionary things happening with battery technology, so I'm sure someone will solve it.

 

[Bobkitty]

I haven't been on AZB for too long but I do know that Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett have both proved buying a book about "aiming systems" seems pretty stupid. My teacher says the complicated systems are wrong and he can prove it with on the pool table in about 15 minutes. I don't see many professionals doing the 15, 30, 45 degrees, pivot right or left, 39/64 is what fractional angle, etc. etc. They just get up there and strike the edge of the OB 180 degrees where it wants to go and work out the shape for the next ball. Willie Mosconi shot many balls at 3-4 seconds each for runs after runs and he didn't have time to do the fractions, 15-45 degree changes, pivots right or left, under handed, over handed, from the right, from the left, etc. etc. I'm talking to a bunch of guys that will never be altered even if shown on the pool table!

 

[Dan White]

Here's Johnny Archer and Shane Van Boening discussing AIMING and how they do it at length. They differ, but it's a very important part of how they play and use it on every shot. Shane uses the shaft and different parts of the ferrule/tip whereas Johnny uses contact points. They also discuss how Stevie Moore has improved from CTE Pro1.
Start at 36:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUT7-RdKdeA

Shane: "Every shot is different -- every spin, every aim. I do not have the same aiming system for every shot."

Archer: uses HAMB, "I've hit a million balls, so..."

Archer says that Moore loves CTE Pro1 and the most important thing is that CTE has caused his confidence to be high.

snip

I could go on and on with this all day. What I have NOT found is a pro player or pro instructor stating they don't use an aiming system of some kind or find them useless and JUNK.

Consider the SOURCE.

Well then we're on two different universes. Technically, yes, EVERYTHING is an aiming system, including HAMB. But that's not what we're talking about. I know you are aware of the Billiards Digest article on aiming from years back where they asked a lot of pros (who were not selling anything) how they aimed. The vast majority of them said they just knew where to hit it after playing so long (HAMB). Efren did say something about aiming in some way similar to CTE. There was a lot of discussion on this in this forum.

If you think about it, it is kind of silly to think that pro players need some 1,2,3 sequence of steps to tell them where to aim the cue ball. Maybe on some difficult situations they have a trick here or there, but for the most part they just know. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that things like what Shane does are an afterthought. Meaning, when he gets down on the shot he already knows what it looks like then the shot is on. Whatever he does with his ferrule is an afterthought. Kind of like he is putting the left edge of the ferrule on the shot line that he already knows is correct. He is NOT FINDING the correct aim line by using the ferrule and some part of the object ball. Maybe it is part of his pre-shot routine, rather than necessary for finding the aim line.

I think aiming systems are good for speeding up the end goal, which ironically is to not need to use the aiming system at all. You just see the cue ball, the object ball and the pocket and your subconscious makes aiming automatic.

 

[stan shuffett]

CTE at its purest level has nothing to do with 1-2-3 rather it's simply see and align.
See what? A known perception that is always founded on 2 lines.
Align to what? A known center with no imagination to it. There's no thicker or thinner tweaking involved.

You described CTE quite well......See and align! It's the same thing over and over with 3 major perceptions.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Bobkitty]

Yeah, this is a problem they are going to have to solve before electric vehicles will ever become mainstream, IMO. I've heard that there are some revolutionary things happening with battery technology, so I'm sure someone will solve it.

Not a problem for me. That is my only long range trip. The time spent in a Supercharger are usually located right next to shopping malls/ restaurants. The four hours charging worth $400 in gasoline for other luxury cars.... worth it to me.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Shane: "Every shot is different -- every spin, every aim. I do not have the same aiming system for every shot."

You just read, watch, and interpret what you want so you can twist it to your argument. Every aim might be different if he's spinning the ball but he also said he uses small amounts of spin when he does. He does have the same aiming process for every shot. It's either the inside of the tip/shaft...the center of the tip/shaft...or the outside of the tip/shaft. It's HIS system that he developed.

Archer: uses HAMB, "I've hit a million balls, so..."

So, so what? What point are you trying to make other than insinuate he doesn't use an aiming system when he does. He also said when the pressure is on and the nerves are up in a big match, and "I AIN'T LYIN" (his words) he specifically focuses on his contact points. Another twist on your part.

Archer says that Moore loves CTE Pro1 and the most important thing is that CTE has caused his confidence to be high.

Of course his confidence is high because he's making more balls with regularity because of CTE.

Well then we're on two different universes.

First thing you may have ever said that's true for both of us.

Technically, yes, EVERYTHING is an aiming system, including HAMB.

Technically, EVERYTHING is an aiming system but NOT HAMB.
Hitting a million balls still ingrained the visualization of either the system of contact points on both the OB and CB, fractions, or overlaps so that the picture of what a player is doing and needs to do comes to him in a millisecond or two but it still involves what got him there. Yes, it seems like feel because of no conscious thought for alignment, but it certainly IS THERE.


But that's not what we're talking about. I know you are aware of the Billiards Digest article on aiming from years back where they asked a lot of pros (who were not selling anything) how they aimed. The vast majority of them said they just knew where to hit it after playing so long (HAMB). Efren did say something about aiming in some way similar to CTE. There was a lot of discussion on this in this forum.

Another skewed statement to support your bogus claim. Most of them DID say what they used. Some didn't want to be involved. See above for HAMB. You also have to get it through your skull that this is a POOL FORUM where most members will never have the time or opportunity to HAMB. They/we'll NEVER be pros or have the inclination to do what they did to get there.

If you think about it, it is kind of silly to think that pro players need some 1,2,3 sequence of steps to tell them where to aim the cue ball. Maybe on some difficult situations they have a trick here or there, but for the most part they just know. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that things like what Shane does are an afterthought. Meaning, when he gets down on the shot he already knows what it looks like then the shot is on. Whatever he does with his ferrule is an afterthought. Kind of like he is putting the left edge of the ferrule on the shot line that he already knows is correct. He is NOT FINDING the correct aim line by using the ferrule and some part of the object ball. Maybe it is part of his pre-shot routine, rather than necessary for finding the aim line.

You saying something totally contradictory to what SHANE says.
He's never stated that. Do you have an in with him also that we don't know about. If I saw Shane some time in the near future and asked him is he knows DAN WHITE, what would he say?

I think aiming systems are good for speeding up the end goal, which ironically is to not need to use the aiming system at all. You just see the cue ball, the object ball and the pocket and your subconscious makes aiming automatic.

See Stan's post regarding the above garbage of yours.

 

[BC21]

.......

I think aiming systems are good for speeding up the end goal, which ironically is to not need to use the aiming system at all. You just see the cue ball, the object ball and the pocket and your subconscious makes aiming automatic.

Preach on amigo. That's my thought also.

 

[Dan White]

Not a problem for me. That is my only long range trip. The time spent in a Supercharger are usually located right next to shopping malls/ restaurants. The four hours charging worth $400 in gasoline for other luxury cars.... worth it to me.

I understand and it is fantastic to be able to save so much. I'm just saying you need your market to be larger than retired people to become mainstream.

 

[BC21]

I haven't been on AZB for too ltong but I do know that Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett have both proved buying a book about "aiming systems" seems pretty stupid. My teacher says the complicated systems are wrong and he can prove it with on the pool table in about 15 minutes. I don't see many professionals doing the 15, 30, 45 degrees, pivot right or left, 39/64 is what fractional angle, etc. etc. They just get up there and strike the edge of the OB 180 degrees where it wants to go and work out the shape for the next ball. Willie Mosconi shot many balls at 3-4 seconds each for runs after runs and he didn't have time to do the fractions, 15-45 degree changes, pivots right or left, under handed, over handed, from the right, from the left, etc. etc. I'm talking to a bunch of guys that will never be altered even if shown on the pool table!

Of course you don't see (or rarely see) pros doing any system-related aiming steps. A good aiming system is like a blueprint for building up your game. After the same prints gets used over and over, eventually you are no longer dependent on the prints. The process becomes automatic. HAMB involves building without prints, using what looks right then readjusting as necessary. It takes a while to develop consistency because you have to miss a lot before you gain any proficiency.

I've always been a feel player, naturally seeing the shots and quickly pocketing balls. As a non-system player it's nearly impossible to show someone how to just see the shots. That's where a good system comes in. If a player has access to a good set of blueprints, the building process can move along much quicker.

Oh, and a 39/64 fractional hit would be so close to a 5/8 shot that it would hit the pocket from anywhere on the table. I know you were just throwing a number out there, but I couldn't resist simplifying it. :wink: It's pretty easy, and pretty quick. 32/64 is 1/2, and 48/64 is 3/4. So 40/64 (dead in-between 32 and 48) is a 5/8. The angle difference between a 39/64 hit and a 40/64 hit is less than 1 degree, which is within the margin of error from any spot on the table. I'm sure a proficient CTE user could use the 30° perception and make it work just as easily.

 

[stan shuffett]

I haven't been on AZB for too long but I do know that Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett have both proved buying a book about "aiming systems" seems pretty stupid. My teacher says the complicated systems are wrong and he can prove it with on the pool table in about 15 minutes. I don't see many professionals doing the 15, 30, 45 degrees, pivot right or left, 39/64 is what fractional angle, etc. etc. They just get up there and strike the edge of the OB 180 degrees where it wants to go and work out the shape for the next ball. Willie Mosconi shot many balls at 3-4 seconds each for runs after runs and he didn't have time to do the fractions, 15-45 degree changes, pivots right or left, under handed, over handed, from the right, from the left, etc. etc. I'm talking to a bunch of guys that will never be altered even if shown on the pool table!

IMO Dr. Dave nor Bob J. will endorse your stupidity comments about aiming material.
Bob J. offered to assist me with a content review for my first video. He's more open than you realize.

The reason you don't see pros doing what they're doing is because you don't know what you're doing yourself. You and your teacher are almost doing CTE in the respect that for every shot you a dancing quite near to a 15 30 45 or 60. Of course, you can't know that because you are not paying close enough attention. You have have no real idea of what you do with your vision other than park it in the behind center cue ball which is an amateur location.

CTE takes that close-up dance and makes it exact. If. Of course, you can't know that because neither you nor your friend is aware of the real details for CTE. If you are then post them here or on YouTube.

One of the hard lessons to learn in pool is not to speak in areas of where you really aren't dialed in to the truths.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Bobkitty]

Of course you don't see (or rarely see) pros doing any system-related aiming steps. A good aiming system is like a blueprint for building up your game. After the same prints gets used over and over, eventually you are no longer dependent on the prints. The process becomes automatic. HAMB involves building without prints, using what looks right then readjusting as necessary. It takes a while to develop consistency because you have to miss a lot before you gain any proficiency.

I've always been a feel player, naturally seeing the shots and quickly pocketing balls. As a non-system player it's nearly impossible to show someone how to just see the shots. That's where a good system comes in. If a player has access to a good set of blueprints, the building process can move along much quicker.

Oh, and a 39/64 fractional hit would be so close to a 5/8 shot that it would hit the pocket from anywhere on the table. I know you were just throwing a number out there, but I couldn't resist simplifying it. :wink: It's pretty easy, and pretty quick. 32/64 is 1/2, and 48/64 is 3/4. So 40/64 (dead in-between 32 and 48) is a 5/8. The angle difference between a 39/64 hit and a 40/64 hit is less than 1 degree, which is within the margin of error from any spot on the table. I'm sure a proficient CTE user could use the 30° perception and make it work just as easily.

Brian, you are telling me that you calculate the correct fraction to hit the OB into your main pool shots during the match? I can see your book as a starting point but I know where 1/2 ball hit is and that is about it. Even if it's sitting on the 1/2 ball line, my brain just does not tell me that because I have not adjusted to that since reading your book. I just don't need to figure out the "fractions" of the OB. I can tell by my own "aiming system". I think you did a great job laying out the book but some of us just don't need it.

 

[BC21]

Brian, you are telling me that you calculate the correct fraction to hit the OB into your main pool shots during the match? I can see your book as a starting point but I know where 1/2 ball hit is and that is about it. Even if it's sitting on the 1/2 ball line, my brain just does not tell me that because I have not adjusted to that since reading your book. I just don't need to figure out the "fractions" of the OB. I can tell by my own "aiming system". I think you did a great job laying out the book but some of us just don't need it.

I would say I revert to actually looking at the fraction on one or two shots per hour. Some angles come up that I just don't see immediately, like a long back cut or a shot I have to cut from one side of the table diagonally to the far corner pocket. On these shots I take an extra 10 to 15 seconds to double-check my instinct before pulling the trigger. If these shots came up often I'd already have them programmed into my brain. But they don't, and instead of shooting 300 of them a day for practice, I simply determine the appropriate fractional aim point and easily pocket the ball. That's the beauty of my system. And I'm sure system player, whether they yse it on every shot or just occasional shots, finds comfort in knowing the ball is going to hit the pocket. No guesswork.

Now I'm off to play done $40 one hole. And I guarantee you I'll be using my system when doubt creeps in on a shot here and there. I like keeping my money.

 

[Bobkitty]

I would say I revert to actually looking at the fraction on one or two shots per hour. Some angles come up that I just don't see immediately, like a long back cut or a shot I have to cut from one side of the table diagonally to the far corner pocket. On these shots I take an extra 10 to 15 seconds to double-check my instinct before pulling the trigger. If these shots came up often I'd already have them programmed into my brain. But they don't, and instead of shooting 300 of them a day for practice, I simply determine the appropriate fractional aim point and easily pocket the ball. That's the beauty of my system. And I'm sure system player, whether they yse it on every shot or just occasional shots, finds comfort in knowing the ball is going to hit the pocket. No guesswork.

Now I'm off to play done $40 one hole. And I guarantee you I'll be using my system when doubt creeps in on a shot here and there. I like keeping my money.

NOW, that is great news on using your system on the tougher shots. I should do that too. Good Luck!

 

[bbb]

I would say I revert to actually looking at the fraction on one or two shots per hour. Some angles come up that I just don't see immediately, like a long back cut or a shot I have to cut from one side of the table diagonally to the far corner pocket. On these shots I take an extra 10 to 15 seconds to double-check my instinct before pulling the trigger. If these shots came up often I'd already have them programmed into my brain. But they don't, and instead of shooting 300 of them a day for practice, I simply determine the appropriate fractional aim point and easily pocket the ball. That's the beauty of my system. And I'm sure system player, whether they use it on every shot or just occasional shots, finds comfort in knowing the ball is going to hit the pocket. No guesswork.

Now I'm off to play done $40 one hole. And I guarantee you I'll be using my system when doubt creeps in on a shot here and there. I like keeping my money.

brian its nice to know your system ...:wink:
and i use it like you do from time to time

 

[bbb]

for the record
i still think its wrong to bash systems
since everyone that aims and can pocket a ball has a system......

 

[paultex]

If I could actually hit at what the hell i aim, I would beat the universe.

 

[Low500]

See Stan's post regarding the above garbage of yours.

I think most of the know-it-all troublemakers and smart alecks have that HAMB stuff all wrong. Some use these conversations as an oblique approach to hype or sell something. (I've noticed that Shuffett isn't posting here much at all anymore and I don't blame him one bit. After all the insults and abuse he's had to endure, it's a wonder he even signs on anymore)...but that is another story, etc. etc.
The correct declaration should be POCKET a Million Balls.
A person can hit a million balls, but if that person's pocketing percentage is 60-70% then hitting the balls over and over (no matter how many millions) is merely compounding the previous error(s) that caused the misses in the first place.
A precise, simple, repeatable aiming method increases the percentage of pocketed balls...included in that sum of a "million balls". (of course, then comes the conversation about which aiming method works best for the shooter in question.)
All this is assuming the shooter has a reasonably good stroke, stance, decent eyesight, and all the other basic stuff we read in just about any book on "how to shoot pool".
POCKETING a million balls is the goal.........just hitting them and doing the same wrong things over and over and over (especially aiming at the wrong spot) will not correct anything too much. In fact, over the long run, as the body and eyes naturally deteriorate, it can make things worse.
Your posts concerning this stuff, by they way, are spot on...in my opinion.
Keep on truckin'
:thumbup:

 

[Bobkitty]

I've only said that all complex by the book, DVD, "aiming systems" only account for 60% of the OB aiming points. I think Dr. Dave came up with that conclusion some years ago. I don't see his evidence posted here anymore.... That (60%) is the case, then why learn the aiming concept if you've got to learn another simpler one to manage the other 40% to move the OB where it wants to go? I think Willie Mosconi, if he had CTE, SAMBA, pivots, etc. would go right back to his; "hit the back (180 degrees) of the ball where you want it to go". That covers all 100 % of the OB.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I understand and it is fantastic to be able to save so much. I'm just saying you need your market to be larger than retired people to become mainstream.

It doesn't cost $400 to gas up a car on what I assume is primarily highway driving from Salem, Oregon to San Diego which was clocked at 1,100 miles one way or 2,200 total. It's about 1/2 the cost and maybe less.

A Tesla costs between $68,000 to $135,000 brand new. (not the new 3 model introduced this year which is $35,000 with a 1 year waiting period if on the list)

A new 2017 Lexus ES 350 or new Genesis G80 can be purchased currently on season closeouts from between $38,000 to $45,000. The Lexus 300 Hybrid gets 40 mpg average. All 3 of these cars are luxury models. The G80 is incredibly loaded and luxurious. I've driven all 3 and have friends who own them.

How many years of fuel savings would it take in gas vs. electricity to make up the difference in the purchase price of either the Lexus or Genesis compared to a Tesla? Electricity isn't free either...not to speak of the hassle and time on long trips.

That having been said, would I like to drive one? Absolutely! Own one? What you posted above as well as the development of new and better batteries.
(God help me, we may agree on something)

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'd like know where these figures of 60% and 180 degrees came from. Was it pulled out of a hat or a butt hole?

It doesn't even make sense. Where are the links and proof to these numbers and claims?

No links, no proof = total made up bullshit.

Consider the source