How i learnt how to AIM and AIMING systems in General

D

Desmondp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here is how i learnt how to aim in cuesports

Line up a shot, attempt to pot it. Depending on where the object ball goes, you know you hit it too thin or too thick. Set it up, make the necessary adjustment and try again. Once you have the shot down, repeat until memorised. Rinse and repeat a few hundred thousand times with all different shots.

Now i play both snooker and pool and i'm not one of these 'snooker elitists" who think snooker is way harder than pool. Both games are hard in their own right, the speciality shots in pool are very challenging to learn.

However you can't dispute that just isolating the potting, snooker is harder in that regard. Not just the bigger distance, the cut on the pockets and size of them makes all the difference.

Now you go to any top snooker forum, e.g. check out http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=11

and there is virtually no talk about aiming or aiming systems. It's all about cueing technique to produce a ramrod straight, repeatable stroke. Every aspect of stroke mechanics is discussed on snooker forums.

But here on a pool form where the potting is exponentially easier, it's all talk about aiming systems (quite passionate heated debate like we are talking religion and politiics) and not anywhere near as much talk about stroke mechanics. I definitely don't agree with this 'your find your natural stroke' stuff. The human body wasn't made to use a cue to hit a ball, there is nothing natural about it, watch the top players, every single friggin detail and learn from them. The players who have even attempted to deviate from standard recognised perfect cueing in snooker (e.g. Tony Drago and Joe Swail) have been journeymen at best, only having the success they have due to enormous talent, every single No 1 player in snooker history has had perfect cueing technique (John Higgins, Ronnie o sullivan, Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis)

Anyway it's just an interesting observation from someone who enjoys both the pool and snooker worlds.
 
Well said Desmondp.

Understand your own fundamentals and aiming systems will start to seem irrelevant.

Unless you like aiming systems---> then carry on.

Dud
 
Neil said:
There's a very simple reason you hear about it in pool, but not snooker. The three main guys that have come up with it, and advanced it were pool players, not snooker players.

Fundamentals get heated on here just as much. Lately, it's been aiming getting the most coverage, but in the past, fundamentals have been strong too.

To the second poster, if aiming systems are taking the fun away for you, either you are too focused on them, and haven't learned to do them automatically yet, or you enjoy missing now and then.???
Click to expand...

But if the top snooker players aren't using any recognised aiming systems, doesn't that say something ? in just pure potting, they can outshoot any pool player any day of the week. Hell Darren Appleton has got to near the top of the pool world in just a few short years playing american pool because of his snooker and english 8ball background.

To me aiming systems are mostly (not totally just mostly) marketing hogwash sold to people who don't want to put the time in on the table and want a shortcut.
 
Neil said:
To the second poster, if aiming systems are taking the fun away for you, either you are too focused on them, and haven't learned to do them automatically yet, or you enjoy missing now and then.???
Click to expand...

I am fairly new to pool/billiards(played about 2 years) and the systematic approach seems somewhat boring to me. I feel like concentrating, visualizing and playing with a bit more feeling generates more fun :)
 
Desmondp said:
But if the top snooker players aren't using any recognised aiming systems, doesn't that say something ? in just pure potting, they can outshoot any pool player any day of the week. Hell Darren Appleton has got to near the top of the pool world in just a few short years playing american pool because of his snooker and english 8ball background.

To me aiming systems are mostly (not totally just mostly) marketing hogwash sold to people who don't want to put the time in on the table and want a shortcut.
Click to expand...

I think your argument is sound. There is no doubting the fact that the precision required in snooker is MUCH greater than in pool. Quite obviously, snooker players meet that precision requirement without recourse to special "aiming systems" (other than the one you describe--learning the shots; which is, in fact, a kind of "ghost ball approach" because you hit where you remember it should be hit, i.e., you place the CB on the OB where it's "ghost" in your memory says it should be).

Still, it has to be said: in both games it is completely NECESSARY to know (to fairly to VERY tight tolerances) WHERE to hit the ball AND to in fact stroke accurately enough to hit it there. That's just a simple fact. So "aiming" is unquestionably important--no matter what one likes to call it.

"Memory of shots" is, IMO, probably the most prevalent form of "aiming" in use; and it's even used by CTE/pivot shooters, who only "believe" they are using a "system" to tell them where to aim.
 
GetMeThere said:
I think your argument is sound. There is no doubting the fact that the precision required in snooker is MUCH greater than in pool. Quite obviously, snooker players meet that precision requirement without recourse to special "aiming systems" (other than the one you describe--learning the shots; which is, in fact, a kind of "ghost ball approach" because you hit where you remember it should be hit, i.e., you place the CB on the OB where it's "ghost" in your memory says it should be).

Still, it has to be said: in both games it is completely NECESSARY to know (to fairly to VERY tight tolerances) WHERE to hit the ball AND to in fact stroke accurately enough to hit it there. That's just a simple fact. So "aiming" is unquestionably important--no matter what one likes to call it.

"Memory of shots" is, IMO, probably the most prevalent form of "aiming" in use; and it's even used by CTE/pivot shooters, who only "believe" they are using a "system" to tell them where to aim.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you ment to make the point the way you did, but from what you wrote,
it sounds as if you are using 'aiming' and 'aming system" interchangeably.

Yes, everybody aims, but not everybody uses an aiming system.
It could be argued that if you know where to aim, you have no need
for an aiming system. That is how I interpret the OPs comments.

FWIW - Chris Bartram, a bit of a player in his own right, posted
in one of the neverending aiming threads, that neither he, nor any of
the good players he asociates with EVER talk about how they aim.

Maybe there is an important point there somewhere.

Dale
 
Last edited:
pdcue said:
I don't know if you ment to make the point the way you did, but from what you wrote,
it sounds as if you are using 'aiming' and 'aming system" interchangeably.

Yes, everybody aims, but not everybody uses an aiming system.
It could be argued that if you know where to aim, you have no need
for an aiming system. That is how I interpret the OPs comments.

FWIW - Chris Bartram, a bit of a player in his own right, posted
in one of the neverending aiming threads, the neither he, nor any of
the good players he asociates with EVER talk about how they aim.

Maybe there is an important point there somewhere.

Dale
Click to expand...

You're right. I don't mean for "aiming" and "aiming system" to be interchangeable. I would name two things:

1) Aiming METHOD: The process used to point your stroke.
2) Aiming SYSTEM: A formalized recipe to objectively measure or arrive at WHERE one would like to point one's stroke.

I would mean that, when using an aiming "method" you already "KNOW" where you want to hit the OB, and the method helps you align your stroke with what you already KNOW. Using a "system" means that you DON'T know, and the system will DETERMINE for you where to align your stroke.

I would call "learning the shots" a "method," and standard ghost ball (and its derivatives), or something like CTE I would call "systems."

EDIT: So, for me, if I "learn the shots" what that means is I know how much to "cut" the OB for different angles (as I view/estimate them). My "method" then is to coordinate my hand and eyes such that the edge of the CB will cut the OB where I have learned is necessary to make that shot. I don't think doing that is usefully called a "system." And I agree with the OP (I think): I think that's what most players actually do.

Further edit: And, of course, on "tricky shots" a lot of guys will move to the OB-pocket line and find a contact point, and then use that information as part of their "method." (And, if you want to be fussy, I SUPPOSE that should technically be called a "system," since it's a process of determining where to hit the CB that you don't already know).
 
Last edited:
I learned to play as a child simply by making the cue ball strike the object ball in the same spot my cue tip would contact it if I was shooting the object ball in directly without a cue ball. When I was very young that is exactly what I did, shoot the balls directly into the pockets without using a cue ball. That is how I learned to determine the contact point. I suppose this would be referred to as the ghost ball method but we didn't call it that back then. You will still see even pro players line up a shot this way, most often on combination shots.

I consider myself a feel player when it comes to aiming for the following reason. Even though I am focused on the contact point when I shoot, I am not trying to send the cue ball on a line that runs from the middle of the CB to the contact point. Obviously if I did I would hit all cut shots too full, this really only works on straight in shots. But I don't use any "method" to adjust the line I send the CB on even though I am looking at the contact point. I've just learned through feel and experience to make the adjustment for this and for cut angle, squirt, swerve, and throw. I don't try to determine the center of the ghost ball and aim to send the cue ball on this path. For me it's a feel thing. I look at the contact point but feel where to send the cue ball to make contact at the correct spot.
 
Last edited:
Learning by memory is what works best in the long run IMO. The problem most hacks have is no one is there to tell them how important it is to pay attention whether they overcut or undercut on every shot. And here is the kicker: they need to pay attention if they overcut or undercut even on the shots they MAKE.
 
Neil said:
I'm sorry, but that is just a plain silly statement. You are berating people for wanting to get better as fast as they can, and not putting in the hundreds and hundreds of hours you had to put in on one aspect of the game. If there is a shorter way to get to the goal, one would have to be foolish not to use it. That goes for any systems, instruction, ect.

As far as the snooker players, they are better potters on the average for two reasons in my opinion. 1. They shoot on smaller pockets so they learn to really aim. 2. They mainly are just potting balls, not playing near as much position as pool players have to. They have a lot more center ball shots than pool players.
Click to expand...


lol, it only took you six posts in this thread to call his post "silly" and accuse him of "berating people." Why don't you just come right out and call him a naysayer, hater, and accuse him of being here just to stir the pot and cause trouble and be done with it?

Lou Figueroa
 
Desmondp said:
[...]

and there is virtually no talk about aiming or aiming systems. It's all about cueing technique to produce a ramrod straight, repeatable stroke. Every aspect of stroke mechanics is discussed on snooker forums.
[...]
But here on a pool form where the potting is exponentially easier, it's all talk about aiming systems (quite passionate heated debate like we are talking religion and politiics) and not anywhere near as much talk about stroke mechanics. [...]
Click to expand...

I don't think this emphasis on aiming is common in pool/pool instruction. In our 8-hour "foundations" courses, for instance, we spend at least five of the hours on stroke mechanics and about 15 minutes on aiming.

Other instruction I'm familiar with is similar

I think the aiming discussions go on so long because some folks make unsupported claims, and then when others call them on it, they interpret it as an attack, and then its a viscous cycle...
 
Neil said:
There's a very simple reason you hear about it in pool, but not snooker. The three main guys that have come up with it, and advanced it were pool players, not snooker players.

Fundamentals get heated on here just as much. Lately, it's been aiming getting the most coverage, but in the past, fundamentals have been strong too.

To the second poster, if aiming systems are taking the fun away for you, either you are too focused on them, and haven't learned to do them automatically yet, or you enjoy missing now and then.???
Click to expand...

So you never miss?? :)
 
Desmondp said:
Here is how i learnt how to aim in cuesports

Line up a shot, attempt to pot it. Depending on where the object ball goes, you know you hit it too thin or too thick. Set it up, make the necessary adjustment and try again. Once you have the shot down, repeat until memorised. Rinse and repeat a few hundred thousand times with all different shots.

Now i play both snooker and pool and i'm not one of these 'snooker elitists" who think snooker is way harder than pool. Both games are hard in their own right, the speciality shots in pool are very challenging to learn.

However you can't dispute that just isolating the potting, snooker is harder in that regard. Not just the bigger distance, the cut on the pockets and size of them makes all the difference.

Now you go to any top snooker forum, e.g. check out http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=11

and there is virtually no talk about aiming or aiming systems. It's all about cueing technique to produce a ramrod straight, repeatable stroke. Every aspect of stroke mechanics is discussed on snooker forums.

But here on a pool form where the potting is exponentially easier, it's all talk about aiming systems (quite passionate heated debate like we are talking religion and politiics) and not anywhere near as much talk about stroke mechanics. I definitely don't agree with this 'your find your natural stroke' stuff. The human body wasn't made to use a cue to hit a ball, there is nothing natural about it, watch the top players, every single friggin detail and learn from them. The players who have even attempted to deviate from standard recognised perfect cueing in snooker (e.g. Tony Drago and Joe Swail) have been journeymen at best, only having the success they have due to enormous talent, every single No 1 player in snooker history has had perfect cueing technique (John Higgins, Ronnie o sullivan, Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis)

Anyway it's just an interesting observation from someone who enjoys both the pool and snooker worlds.
Click to expand...

VERY GOOD POST!

Aiming Systems in my opinion are a very small piece of the puzzle. SOME people have trouble finding the correct aiming line. SOME people even vacillate over what is the center of the cue ball. SOME people can't "see" the shot as well as others.

It's my belief that aiming systems can be VERY beneficial to some people while others simply can "see" the shot from the time they pick up a cue.

It is also my belief and the belief of the majority of pool players that aiming is a SMALL part of the process of potting and getting shape.

The only arguments come from people who enjoy ridiculing people who utilize aiming systems to help their game AND IT DOES HELP many pool players' game. Another group of people have to make their mark in the pool world by being "right". Some people choose to make assumptions about aiming systems when they haven't learned how those aiming systems work in the first place. They receive second hand information and assume that they know exactly what is taking place. You know what they say about assume.

I've never played snooker but I can see that the snooker players are far ahead of pool players when it comes to mechanics instruction. We need to look to the other side of the pond to "catch up", at least on mechanics, imo.
 
Neil said:
Lou, either learn to read, or quit trying to stir the pot again! If you bother to READ my post #6, AND read the post that I quoted as being silly, you will see that I was quoting post #5. AND, that what I said was silly is that he stated that all aiming systems are just marketing hogwash for lazy people.
Click to expand...



Learn to read or quit trying to stir the pot...

Nice. Typical, but nice ;-)

Lou Figueroa
thanks for
proving my point :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top