Please Explain Your "Aiming System"?
- Thread starter Bobkitty
- Start date
Inconclusive. (I forgot to do it.). But I missed two shots in 5 games, both were very thin case shots. I overcut them.
Ha. Obviously then beginners do not overcut shots as you've just proven. (That's aiming forum logic).
Actually if I had to bet on it, I'd say that beginners undercut more. Well let me refine that a little. I'm going to say intermediate players tend to undercut until they get warmed up a little.
But maybe not.
I wish you put a before and after pic.
These cuts in discussion have a pattern based on length and which side of the visual system and what side of the table.....not based on cut angle alone.
Some shots from the stand up, you want to visually align to what appears thick and no way in hell is that the right approach......when if trusted, by the time you fall into address, you will be perfect, a very nice contact relationship and actually be fighting thin vs the visual of appearing just a hair thick.
......and all this changes from one side, distance etc etc to another but there is a pattern, thus a way to understand this dilemma of what i estimate to be about 5 key elements of triangulation, table hindrance, delivery skew etc etc.
I am speaking in terms of command of 3 sides of the cueball. If it's just a question of pocketing these shots one dimensionally, then aim contact points or whatever system and shoot and then make necessary adjustments over time.
But when you want a vertical roll, or low spin or stun or all the other variables, you got to understand deeper as to just what the hell mind and visual games these things are playing on a person.
Its a con job magic show imo.
Not a high percentage shot on my table, but I made 14 of 20. Hit 4 shots a touch too thick and 2 shots a touch too thin. From that distance if the CB is +/- 0.08 inches off on hitting the right spot on the OB you're going to miss the shot.
True, but the whole point of this is that after doing the shot, isn't the "over cut" the better way to go? A pure sell out is to hit the ball too thick and miss the pocket (which I say most people will do on misses). A better practice is to hit the right edge of the corner pocket (a #5) and if the shot is over cut, it will produce a nice little safety. I work on this often moving the CB set up from 4X (middle of the table) and then on back one diamond making myself hit the pocket by hitting the #5 pocket (against the right hand point), 3 times each.
True, but the whole point of this is that after doing the shot, isn't the "over cut" the better way to go? And, I say, most people will under cut the shot, leaving a pure sell out. I practice this a lot.
On this particular shot at that distance on a 9ft, if you have to shoot it, the best goal is to simply go for a center pocket shot. There's a little more than +/- 3° margin of error from the center. Trying to purposely pocket it on the thin side will more than likely result in more misses. I would much rather hear someone say "that was a Nice shot" than "at least he hit it on the pro side." My point is, and I'm sure most strong players would agree, especially pro, if you decide to pocket this ball you're not going to shoot it purposely thin just in case you miss. That undermines confidence. Unless of course you're playing a "case" shot and you really don't expect to pocket the ball but realize you play offense and defense together. But it's usually one or the other, no iffy business.
Sure, everytime we see a guy over-cut a ball we like to say, "At least he hit it on the pro side." You hear commentators say it everytime a pro misses by over-cutting the ball, but I guarantee you, unless that pro was playing a 2-way style case shot, he (or she) wanted to split the pocket with that ball, not overcut it.
Last edited:
could you post a pic of you shooting some shots ?
thanks
I totally agree with you here. I have always said it is just plain wrong to aim for the point of the pocket to hope you get safe if you miss. Aim for the center of the opening, and you won't miss so many, you double your margin of error.
Exactly. Once you commit to the goal of pocketing the ball, you should give yourself the best chance of success.
Maybe so, but in my practice on tighter cut shots, where I'm trying to hit a "5" on the pocket, many times I come up with a "3". I think it makes for the most control in playing competitively.
Put it this way..... If you happen to miss due to hitting a shot too thin, it's usually better than missing by hitting it too full. But that doesn't mean you should play it thinner in case you miss.
I mean, if you're good enough to pinpoint a particular section of the pocket on nearly a 50° shot from over 6ft away, you should have no reason to play it thin "in case" you miss. Just shoot the ball in.
Put it this way..... If you happen to miss due to hitting a shot too thin, it's usually better than missing by hitting it too full. But that doesn't mean you should play it thinner in case you miss.
Okay, let's name all of the things that could make the OB go straighter than we meant it to producing an under-cut shot; collision-induced throw, chalk on the CB, dirty balls, etc. I'm sure there are about 6 more of those. How many make it go thinner: ................ (none)?
Oh I understand the concept of targeting the ob thinner than needed to account for CIT. But you are talking about pocketing this ball purposely into the right facing, which means you have to go beyond cutting a little thinner to account for CIT. You have to aim to miss the pocket, or at least for the tip of the pocket. You cut your margin of error in half. By targeting just right of center, the give yourself the best chance if pocketing the ball every time.
I think that every time, the person should look at the hole; #1 the thickest--- #3 the middle, and #5 the thinnest hit. My teacher does this on every shot. He aims at the portion of the pocket he wishes to hit and as he goes around the table, he'll announce it, saying where he hit the pocket. He wants me to do the same getting the target so precise. If his shape doesn't turn out, it might be because he hit the pocket to thick or to thin. I'll catch hell on AZB because nobody has ever heard of someone doing that, but it makes sense to me and I've seen him doing it time after time. And, he has trained himself to do this for the last 45+ years. A nice habit to learn. I know if anyone raises hell about that, it's because they are jealous as hell. Nothing hard about it, just a matter of practicing it and affecting the brain. Professional golfers don't just look at the green, they have a precise spot to hit the ball to. Even on the driving range, they are aiming at a yardage sign, a tree trunk, etc. Nothing just out there.
Last edited:
Nah, you won't catch hell. The fact is, when the object ball is straight out from the pocket, the whole pocket is visible, and it's useable if you're close enough to confidently shoot the ball left or right of center for position purposes. But this is only necessary when there is no angle or a very slight angle and you need to create an angle to get the CB to a particular location. It's not something done on cut shots where an angle already exists.
Even if you're only using the vertical center axis of the CB, moving to the next shot simply requires an angle and speed control, using either top, stun, or draw. There's no need to decrease your odds of making the shot by trying to control shape through manipulating the shot angle.
When the OB is not straight on to the pocket, every good player knows to aim for the visible pocket facing in order to take advantage of the allowable margin of error. This is standard practice, especially on a Diamond table where barely hitting the points almost always causes
the ball to rattle. But that doesn't mean we're trying to pocket the ball exactly through the outer limits of the pocket. We aim for that target point knowing CIT will push the ball toward the sweet spot where we have the greatest margin of error. Or, if it's a back cut, we usually aim for the near point knowing CIT will push the ball into the pocket. That's the crux of the matter.
Well, like I said, Lassiter played like this. I think it also comes down to the student. Training a beginner to play like this is probably counterproductive. I think it would be good training for an advanced player who might not have spent much time consciously trying to cheat the pocket one way or the other, which is what this is.
I'd be curious whether pro players generally play like this for 9 ball on Diamond tables, or if they prefer the safety of center pocket and either speed or english to get position.
On cut shots where an angle already exists, I'm sure most pros would not purposely cheat the pocket unless the distance between the balls is only 2 or 3 feet, and the OB within a couple of feet of the pocket. The most to be gained from trying this at greater distances is merely an extra half a degree of CB departure, or 1 degree at the most. It's not worth the risk.