Relationship Aiming, it's the only way....

[Bobkitty]

I believe the difference is simple: There is no ball where the ghostball is, hence the word "ghost". It can't be seen, and picturing the center of this imaginary ball is a matter of pure subjectivity. The more experience a player has the more accurate their estimations are. When visualizing CTE lines or fractional aim points there is always a real OB that can plainly be seen. Picking out a spot that looks halfway between OB center and OB edge is a fairly objective visual that does not require any particular estimating experience as with locating an imaginary ghostball center somewhere behind or beside the OB.

And I'm sure the standard CTE "perceptions" are based on 2 visualized lines, not 3. The perceptions are not difficult. They are merely visual perspectives obtained from behind the CB with the OB in the background. You can find a location behind the CB that will give you whatever perspective/perception you're looking for. Try this, let's say you want to use a 15 "perception"...first visualize a CTE line (center CB to edge of OB), then move your eyes/body closer or farther from the CB (keeping the CTE lined up) until you get to a spot where you can also visualize an ETA line (edge of CB to A on OB). That's it. A qualified CTE user can explain what to do next.

Neither system can do the micro-little bitty adjustments that a relationship contact can do. Joe Davis, who wrote books of the snooker community says to do the "area method" relationship of the CB and OB, which is the same thing as what I'm writing about. Place the balls with the OB one diamond away from the side pocket with a straight in CB one diamond away from the OB, both perfectly straight in, now make the OB into the side and drive the CB left to the end rail, now make it and drive the CB right to the end rail. How did your aiming system do? You had to come off of it to drive the OB into the very sides of the side pocket to make the CB move out. A very simple easy test but someone, anyone can see the example of very miniature aiming precision. I don't expect to get any support here. The guys that aim this way are not here in the "aiming" forum.

 

[BC21]

Neither system can do the micro-little bitty adjustments that a relationship contact can do. Joe Davis, who wrote books of the snooker community says to do the "area method" relationship of the CB and OB, which is the same thing as what I'm writing about. Place the balls with the OB one diamond away from the side pocket with a straight in CB one diamond away from the OB, now make the OB into the side and drive the CB left to the end rail, now make it and drive the CB right to the end rail. How did your aiming system do? You had to come off of it to drive the OB into the very sides of the side pocket to make the CB move out. A very simple easy test but someone can see the example.

You are misunderstanding my system. It's not a do-this-every-time type of a system. It's meant to give a player a sense of feel for cut shots. Along with that sense of feel comes the simple ability of fine-tuning certain shots a little left or right as needed. Remember, Poolology isn't about dependency. The more a player uses it the more they'll find themselves no longer needing it. They'll just see the shots.

I shouldn't have posted in this thread because your opinion on the limitations of aiming systems doesn't apply to Poolology. It is relationship aiming. For you straight in test, a player would simply aim a touch left or right of center ob. It's that simple.

 

[Bobkitty]

You are misunderstanding my system. It's not a do-this-every-time type of a system. It's meant to give a player a sense of feel for cut shots. Along with that sense of feel comes the simple ability of fine-tuning certain shots a little left or right as needed. Remember, Poolology isn't about dependency. The more a player uses it the more they'll find themselves no longer needing it. They'll just see the shots.

I shouldn't have posted in this thread because your opinion on the limitations of aiming systems doesn't apply to Poolology. It is relationship aiming. For you straight in test, a player would simply aim a touch left or right of center ob. It's that simple.

Your writing in red, proves what I'm writing about. No other aiming system works right on, you've got to cheat it one way or the other to make up the micro-adjustments that I'm talking about! I know and I understand your "Poolology" system. With the same shot and the OB is 5' away from the pocket, doing the same thing, OTHER systems can NOT do it, the perceived lines indicate that the ball goes into the middle of the pocket and the little bitty precision shots can not be done. It is a simple test but the evidence holds true. What system does someone want to get used to???

 

[BC21]

I know and I understand your "Poolology" system. With the same shot and the OB is 5' away from the pocket, doing the same thing, OTHER systems can NOT do it, the perceived lines indicate that the ball goes into the middle of the pocket and the little bitty precision shots can not be done. It is a simple test but the evidence holds true. What system does someone want to get used to???

I'm pick'n up what you're lay'n down. But honestly, I believe any aiming system can achieve what you're talking about by incorporating a little feel into the system, which is what your brain does automatically after enough repitition. Some will say there is no feel or instinct involved in this system or that system, but experience creates feel. So it's there whether realized or not, and that's how these tiny adjustments are achieved in order to do what you are saying an aiming system can't achieve.

Ghostball is a different story. These little tweaks left or right take mucho tiempo before a player gets decent at it. The reason is because the ghostball visualization is based on an experienced estimation. The player must first develop consistent ghostball visualization before being able to fine tune the shot a tiny amount left I right. With a known fractional aim point the player simply aims a micro thinner or thicker than that the known aim point. For the same reason as ghostball, traditional fractional ball aiming would require a lot of table time before these tiny tweaks could become consistent, because the player would first have to develop consistency in the determination of knowing which fractional aim point to use. Only then could he be expected to fine tune it.

 

[Dan White]

I prefer to let the force guide my shot. Though, I have an unusually high midichlorian count so it's probably easier for me than most people.

I'd say more like an unusually high nerd count!

 

[BC21]

Fractional ball aiming is relationship aiming. I would also say CTE is to a certain degree, as I understand the "perceptions".

 

[Dan White]

Now when I play pool because of time constraints with work, I PLAY pool with Allen Hopkins at his house.

I must admit I'm more than a little jealous. Does he give you pointers on straight pool?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I must admit I'm more than a little jealous. Does he give you pointers on straight pool?

We played straight pool in the past but now it's always one pocket. What he taught me in straight pool is how to have patience while sitting in a chair for long periods of time. I'm being dead serious.

His defensive game in one pocket is so incredibly strong if I score more than 2 balls in a game I feel like I've won. Again, I'm being dead serious.

It's mind numbing how much he knows and how good he is while "past his prime."

 

[BC21]

We played straight pool in the past but now it's always one pocket. What he taught me in straight pool is how to have patience while sitting in a chair for long periods of time. I'm being dead serious.

His defensive game in one pocket is so incredibly strong if I score more than 2 balls in a game I feel like I've won. Again, I'm being dead serious.

It's mind numbing how much he knows and how good he is while "past his prime."

That's awesome. If we ever run into each other in a pool hall somewhere, remind me then who your sparring partner is! Lol.

 

[Dan White]

We played straight pool in the past but now it's always one pocket. What he taught me in straight pool is how to have patience while sitting in a chair for long periods of time. I'm being dead serious.

His defensive game in one pocket is so incredibly strong if I score more than 2 balls in a game I feel like I've won. Again, I'm being dead serious.

It's mind numbing how much he knows and how good he is while "past his prime."

Amateurs have no idea how good the pro's in any sport really are. I had a friend who had occasion to play a set of tennis with legendary player Bjorn Borg. My friend was one of the best players at the club and the deal was that Borg had to try and beat him the best he could, not give away points.

Borg serves and my friend hits the ball as hard as he could for a clean winner. He figured if Borg got a racquet on it the point would be over.

Borg won every remaining point in less than ten minutes. Not sure he even broke a sweat and he was well past his prime.

 

[BC21]

Amateurs have no idea how good the pro's in any sport really are. I had a friend who had occasion to play a set of tennis with legendary player Bjorn Borg. My friend was one of the best players at the club and the deal was that Borg had to try and beat him the best he could, not give away points.

Borg serves and my friend hits the ball as hard as he could for a clean winner. He figured if Borg got a racquet on it the point would be over.

Bord won every remaining point in less than ten minutes. Not sure he even broke a sweat and he was well past his prime.

The closest I've come to having a pro player buddy is hanging with Travis Stamper or Larry Price, both absolutely incredible players. Price is gone now, but he was great. Travis doesn't live around here anymore, but years ago he'd spot me 13-5 in one hole, and I couldn't win. It was rediculous how he could run out on a super-shimmed Diamond 9-footer like it was a Valley bar box. I play much better one pocket now, and when I'm spotting a guy something like 10-5 or 9-6, I can't help but wonder how the guy would match up with Travis....lol.....maybe 14 to 2!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Amateurs have no idea how good the pro's in any sport really are.

That is a FACT!

I had a friend who had occasion to play a set of tennis with legendary player Bjorn Borg. My friend was one of the best players at the club and the deal was that Borg had to try and beat him the best he could, not give away points.

Borg serves and my friend hits the ball as hard as he could for a clean winner. He figured if Borg got a racquet on it the point would be over.

Borg won every remaining point in less than ten minutes. Not sure he even broke a sweat and he was well past his prime.

Good story. I'm just glad Allen is my friend and not some retired World Champion boxer in ANY weight division who likes to play around with the gloves on for funsies.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Reminds me of my match with Dave Bollman at a Texas Express tour stop in NoVA.

:sorry:

Amateurs have no idea how good the pro's in any sport really are. I had a friend who had occasion to play a set of tennis with legendary player Bjorn Borg. My friend was one of the best players at the club and the deal was that Borg had to try and beat him the best he could, not give away points.

Borg serves and my friend hits the ball as hard as he could for a clean winner. He figured if Borg got a racquet on it the point would be over.

Borg won every remaining point in less than ten minutes. Not sure he even broke a sweat and he was well past his prime.

 

[justadub]

Amateurs have no idea how good the pro's in any sport really are. I had a friend who had occasion to play a set of tennis with legendary player Bjorn Borg. My friend was one of the best players at the club and the deal was that Borg had to try and beat him the best he could, not give away points.

Borg serves and my friend hits the ball as hard as he could for a clean winner. He figured if Borg got a racquet on it the point would be over.

Borg won every remaining point in less than ten minutes. Not sure he even broke a sweat and he was well past his prime.

I watched Mike Dechaine messing around at our pool hall here a while ago. Understand, this was a league night in the middle of nowhere, so the locals weren't gonna provide much sport...the deal was he had to win 9 games before the other guy made a ball. One ball. (Mike racked and broke, of course) It was an amazing display...a lot of fun to watch. No one did it while I watched. One guy had one moderately reasonable chance to make a ball, but he was so rattled by actually getting a chance that he donkeyed it badly. Funny stuff, he had to laugh as well...

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Relationship aiming (the OB and the CB in a ghost ball relationship) is the only way to play pool and the lines and fractions (of a complicated aiming system) can just not do it. Take this test; place the OB ball two or three feet from a pocket, and the CB ball anywhere. Now strike and move the OB where it hits the left corner extrusion and goes in, then make it hit the center and it goes in, then make it hit the right extrusion and it goes in. These are the adjustments one needs to perform the best shape for the next ball. If your CB is at a certain solid placement, notice how it goes to different places on the table with these little bitty aiming shots! None of these things you can do with perception lines, fractions, and other aiming systems that are aligned to make the OB to the center of the hole. You've got to learn the "relationship" alignment to make these little bitty adjustments to where the OB goes. Sorry, but it's a fact! If you can not do this, go to a competent pool teacher and get them to show you. I will not be writing a book as I just did it in one paragraph.

Why is a "complicated" aim system the sole alternative to relationship aim?

Why do you feel most players can visualize ghost balls of different sizes (over different distances from their eyes) better than distinct points on the cue ball and object balls?

 

[lfigueroa]

Amateurs have no idea how good the pro's in any sport really are. I had a friend who had occasion to play a set of tennis with legendary player Bjorn Borg. My friend was one of the best players at the club and the deal was that Borg had to try and beat him the best he could, not give away points.

Borg serves and my friend hits the ball as hard as he could for a clean winner. He figured if Borg got a racquet on it the point would be over.

Borg won every remaining point in less than ten minutes. Not sure he even broke a sweat and he was well past his prime.

Yesterday a buddy and I were swapping stories about playing pros and I mentioned two instances stuck in me brain when I laid the CB down exactly where I wanted and still ended up with a poor result.

One was playing Jose Parica at the 2013 DCC. It went something like this:
#####
Several times I left him far away with a ball straight in to my pocket and he would go up and with his cue carefully measure the angle from a ball sitting out in the open, to the side rail, AND THEN measure the angle from the rail to the ball to telegraph *the exact angle* he would take to snuggle the CB right to the side of a ball and a position I would not like. The coupe de grace went like this: I had purposely left him with the 14 ball near the first diamond at the far end of the long rail on his side, but with the cue ball semi-jacked up on the eleven near the the opposite corner pocket. Basically a 110 degree angle. Jose looked at the shot for a disconcertingly short period of time, walked along the long rail to his pocket running his hand down the cloth to detect any errant bits of chalk and then gently, brilliantly, without so much as touching a rail precision, runs the 14 8' down the table to his pocket. The cue ball races back and forth and lands just so for a two-railer, which he shoots in with great aplomb.
#####

The udder time was playing Darren Appleton at the 2012 US One Pocket Open:
#####
The third game, early on, he makes one, plays safe, but leaves me a straight back that I have to twist in and slip by a ball near the far rail. I hit the shot perfectly, the one ball narrowly escaping contact with the blocker, and knocking in a two ball near my hole. I have gracefully swung the cue ball to the other side of the table and I run six. I’m feeling pretty good. Now I’m figuring: OK, I think I know Mr. Appleton is not really comfortable with one pocket -- *I’m shoving them all into the vault.*

And that’s what I did, gradually maneuvering all the remaining balls up table, or forcing him to do the same, and then pushing them tighter and tighter into a “wedge” near the far corner pocket on his side. We bunt balls for an extended period until I miscalculate and let a ball leak out. The penalty Darren exercises is three balls. Now it’s 6-4. Still not too bad. Later, Appleton miscalculates, leaving me jacked up but straight in. 7-4, I am on the hill. We continued to bunt balls trying to leave each other nothing. At one point he miscalculates again and I have a shot to win the game. The only problem is that I’m within a quarter inch of the 14 ball with a severe back cut to my pocket. I jack up a bit to avoid the foul, aim with a considerable amount of english to throw the ball, but over cut it by just enough to come barely short of the pocket.

A few shots later I get another shot at the game winner. A long bank off the side rail, but I shoot it short once again. I have left the 11 ball less than a diamond from my pocket along the long rail, but Darren begins to examine a ball on his side rail about a diamond and a half below the side pocket. I’m thinking, “No way -- the angle is too severe.” But I was wrong. Appleton lines up and fires the ball down the rail, shooting the shot with draw and right-hand english and whips the cue ball around four rails to come up perfect on a bank shot on the 11, with position on another ball back up table. 7-7. Now, it’s not looking so good.

When I finally get back to the table, the last remaining ball is almost in the jaws of the pocket of the far corner pocket on my side. I decide I have no other choice but to make the ball and spin the cue ball along the bottom rail over to his side. I hit the shot well enough and the cue balls travels to his side of the table, and comes up and stops about four inches past the middle diamond on the end rail, about a half inch off the cushion. I place the pocketed ball on the spot. And then, after looking at the shot for only a moment, Appleton gets down and gently back cuts the ball off the spot and into his hole. I lose 7-8.
#####

The pros are better than you think. For a while Buddy Hall was coming through St Louis giving up *big* spots like 13-5 and still having his way with the locals. Nick Varner came through town a few months later offering games like 10-7 and everyone laughed at him. He ended up said, "Buddy ruined St. Louis for the pros" having shown them what was close to a true line and not what everybody imagined it to be.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Bobkitty]

Why is a "complicated" aim system the sole alternative to relationship aim?

Why do you feel most players can visualize ghost balls of different sizes (over different distances from their eyes) better than distinct points on the cue ball and object balls?

I don't visualize "ghost balls". Most people think and try to hit the "relationship" of the CB up against the OB to make the OB go where it needs to go. 100% of the OB is now hit-able, verses 60% with fractions, and other aiming systems. I've had 4-5 great players and pros tell me in private mail, this is the way they aim but they do not want to post in the "aiming" section. I can see why not. Who wants to get the grief of the "aiming system" gurus.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I don't visualize "ghost balls". Most people think and try to hit the "relationship" of the CB up against the OB to make the OB go where it needs to go. 100% of the OB is now hit-able, verses 60% with fractions, and other aiming systems. I've had 4-5 great players and pros tell me in private mail, this is the way they aim but they do not want to post in the "aiming" section. I can see why not. Who wants to get the grief of the "aiming system" gurus.

I'm aware that many pros use the sectional aiming method you describe. I also bend down and see the "angle between" to aim.

Aim systems are mainly to help non-pros learn the angles and build their skills until they can aim by instinct/visualization.

You cannot, however, reasonably tell a new player, "you'll be great in aiming by trial-and-error" or "use no system, just see the relationship between the balls".

I also speak with pro friends about aim, many of them cannot verbalize what they do because they play more instinctively--the goal--but no help to intermediates.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

I don't visualize "ghost balls". Most people think and try to hit the "relationship" of the CB up against the OB to make the OB go where it needs to go. 100% of the OB is now hit-able, verses 60% with fractions, and other aiming systems. I've had 4-5 great players and pros tell me in private mail, this is the way they aim but they do not want to post in the "aiming" section. I can see why not. Who wants to get the grief of the "aiming system" gurus.

My question still stands:

Why is a "complicated" aim system the sole alternative to relationship aim?

There are simple aim systems that help newer and intermediate players.

I respect you and your knowledge, but there's no way you can tell an APA 5 to "just hit the relationship between the balls and pocket" to get them to a 6 or 7. I help many students go up two rankings in league or more in a single lesson by adjusting a few little stance things and giving them a real, simple aim system.

 

[BC21]

I don't visualize "ghost balls". Most people think and try to hit the "relationship" of the CB up against the OB to make the OB go where it needs to go. 100% of the OB is now hit-able, verses 60% with fractions, and other aiming systems. I've had 4-5 great players and pros tell me in private mail, this is the way they aim but they do not want to post in the "aiming" section. I can see why not. Who wants to get the grief of the "aiming system" gurus.

Lol.....What is the difference between "relationship" aiming, which you define as the visual relationship of "the CB up against the OB to make the OB go where it needs to go", and fractional aiming? Fractional aiming is exactly what you are referring to when you say "relationship".

However, as Matt (BilliardsAbout) has already mentioned, aspiring players need more guidance than "just hit the relationship between the balls". That's why my book, which you and R.D. both have a copy of, specifically states that the primary goal of Poolology is to help a player become the type of shooter that "just sees the shots." And providing solid fractional aim points allows those CB/OB relationships to be captured and stored in the brain. Eventually the player will not be thinking about object ball position values or alignment values or fractional aim points. They'll just automatically see the relationship needed to pocket the ball.

Seriously, Dennis, this is disappointing. I mean, you and Robin each have a copy of my book, every word of it. Did each of you just look at the pictures and not read any of it? :frown: