How Do the Pros Aim

AtLarge said:
You also said, regarding Stan: "Those that can, play. Those that can't, teach." Stan is not only a teacher but an excellent player. Your comment was a direct insult -- although it sounds like you said it in ignorance, not knowing about his playing skills.
Click to expand...

That quote is a play on words, based on the saying "those that can, do; those than can't, teach". It was a joke.

I did not know Stan is a player or a teacher. There are a great many people on here selling things, and sometimes it is difficult to tell what is genuinely impartial advice and what isn't. I am always suspicious of people telling me I 'need' a product that I don't think is necessary. I do not see it as unreasonable to challenge this.
 
Scott Lee said:
Mitchxout...IMO, you have it backwards. A stun shot usually requires more cue speed, to cause the CB to skid all the way to the OB (depends on the distance between the CB & OB), and will lessen the effects of CIT.
Click to expand...
Stun shots have to be cut more, not less.

If you're talking about vertical axis shots, then a CB that is skidding (stun shot) vs. a CB that is skidding with backspin still on it at contact with the OB (the draw you described), have the same aim point...
Click to expand...
This is also dead wrong. Draw shots are aimed thicker than stun shots.

in other words, draw on the CB (by itself) does not cause a 'thicker' hit on the OB. CIT happens most often with a fuller hit, when the shot is hit slowly, when the OB's and/or cloth are dirty, or when humidity is high. CIT is cancelled out with either a higher speed stroke, or adding outside spin to the CB.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Parts of this are also incorrect. Maximum CIT occurs at about a !/2 hit. Anything thicker or thinner has less. Also, higher speed can reduce CIT but cannot cancel it.
 
JoeyA said:
People like Lou Figueroa, Patrick Johnson and a few of the other naysayers chase good and decent posters away from this forum all of the time, with their snide remarks and "funny" quips.


The fact that Stan Shuffett posts so little on this forum is a direct reflection of the constant attacks and mean-spirited comments perpertrated by a few.

You can thank the band of naysayers for chasing yet another good poster away from this forum.
Click to expand...

I dan't know. I just read though 18 pages of his posts here and it's a lot of: Landon, Landon, Landon promotion... then a lot of Hal Houle, Hal Houle, Hal Houle (CTE) promotion... some Ron V and DVD promotion... and then a lot of "I'm only posting once and taking my ball home."

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
JoeyA said:
The fact that MANY professional players go to Stan for lessons suggests to me that Stan probably knows far more than any of us HOW PRO PLAYERS AIM....................
Click to expand...


Who are these pro players you speak of?

Lou Figueroa
I hope you're not
going to list John :-)
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Good Lord! How could he have been so crude as to use the phrase "too sensitive"? Where will it all end?

Thaiger, you must keep in mind that there are two sets of posting rules on AzB - one for talking to us mere mortals and another for talking to "celebrity posters". The main difference is that you're not allowed to address a "celebrity poster" without first locking your lips firmly to his ass.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


"Celebrity posters" We got them?!!!!

Lou Figueroa
this would explain
sooooooooooooo much
 
We seem to have wandered a little from the OP's question, but that's what he gets for using that 3-letter word.

Here's an article that covers the theory of why both draw and follow increase the cut angle as compared to stun (all at the same speed, of course). Perhaps more important for those among us who want to understand this on the table, the article includes a simple experiment. From Billiards Digest, May 2006.
 
Bob Jewett said:
We seem to have wandered a little from the OP's question, but that's what he gets for using that 3-letter word.

Here's an article that covers the theory of why both draw and follow increase the cut angle as compared to stun (all at the same speed, of course). Perhaps more important for those among us who want to understand this on the table, the article includes a simple experiment. From Billiards Digest, May 2006.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob for the link. Could you please talk a little about the bridge hand placement in aiming?

Best,
Mike
 
dr_dave said:
Sorry about that. I've included all of the previous quotes above. So I guess my message should have been directly to LaMas or anybody else who thinks the OB can curve a significant or useful amount (see OB swerve).

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks dr. dave,
I had to cut out on a family vacation so I referenced your website for further information on what I proffered about curve.

I have been shooting for 50 years and always shot the spot shot from the head string with the CB on the side rail. When I diagramed the 1/2 OB (edge) hit that is 30 degrees, I realized that how I shot the spot shot was less than a geometric 30 degrees. The geometric 1/2 ball hit should be with the CB on the head string with the CB just to the side of the line from the near corner pocket to the edge of the OB.

I learned here on AZ from several instructors that in order to shoot a correct 1/2 OB to attain that 30 degrees, I must shoot the CB with follow or draw and not just center of the CB which causes the OB to cling to the CB for a bit. that little bit caused the OB to travel forward before starting to roll at 30 degrees. This looked to me like the OB was curving away from the 30 degree line, resulting in the OB going to the target pocket from an angle less than the 30 degrees.

If I shot the CB from the geometrically correct position described above (a line from the near corner pocket) I would hit the top rail just inside of the target corner pocket. That is because of the OB moving forward with the CB for that bit.

After 50 years, I have incorporated follow and draw to increase the angle of my normal perception of the cut angle (which was less than the geometric angle). I knew that this was happening when I used follow or draw to get shape, but I never thought about the physics of what was happening. This understanding has become a very usefull tool.

One doesn't have to understand the physics in order to incorporate this tool into one's bag of tricks - One just has to remember the results.

Just sayin.:smile:
 
Last edited:
Mikjary said:
Thanks, Bob for the link. Could you please talk a little about the bridge hand placement in aiming?

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...
Sure. If you believe that aim-and-pivot and/or backhand english are effective, then it follows that (as Dr. Dave mentioned above) whether you make the shot or not depends more on whether your bridge hand is placed accurately than on whether you come through straight and hit the spot on the cue ball you intend. Yet often the accurate placement of the bridge hand (which is, if you accept the above, the real part of aiming) is glossed over in instruction and in particular in discussion of aiming systems (or methods or techniques). Get your bridge hand right and the ball will go in despite your manifold inadequacies.
 
Bob Jewett said:
We seem to have wandered a little from the OP's question, but that's what he gets for using that 3-letter word.

Here's an article that covers the theory of why both draw and follow increase the cut angle as compared to stun (all at the same speed, of course). Perhaps more important for those among us who want to understand this on the table, the article includes a simple experiment. From Billiards Digest, May 2006.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I've added it to my throw - draw and follow effects resource page.

Regards,
Dave
 
Bob Jewett said:
Sure. If you believe that aim-and-pivot and/or backhand english are effective, then it follows that (as Dr. Dave mentioned above) whether you make the shot or not depends more on whether your bridge hand is placed accurately than on whether you come through straight and hit the spot on the cue ball you intend. Yet often the accurate placement of the bridge hand (which is, if you accept the above, the real part of aiming) is glossed over in instruction and in particular in discussion of aiming systems (or methods or techniques). Get your bridge hand right and the ball will go in despite your manifold inadequacies.
Click to expand...
Didn't you have an article or two on this topic in Billiards Digest recently? If you have them available electronically, please post links. Some people might find them interesting.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Didn't you have an article or two on this topic in Billiards Digest recently? If you have them available electronically, please post links. Some people might find them interesting.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Those were in Billiards Digest in April and May of 2011. They are not on-line yet.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Sure. If you believe that aim-and-pivot and/or backhand english are effective, then it follows that (as Dr. Dave mentioned above) whether you make the shot or not depends more on whether your bridge hand is placed accurately than on whether you come through straight and hit the spot on the cue ball you intend. Yet often the accurate placement of the bridge hand (which is, if you accept the above, the real part of aiming) is glossed over in instruction and in particular in discussion of aiming systems (or methods or techniques). Get your bridge hand right and the ball will go in despite your manifold inadequacies.
Click to expand...

Good post! :thumbup:

Without a doubt, I think this a fundamental problem with many players at all levels when dealing with consistency. I believe your bridge placement can be affected by many factors from a poor PSR to just being fatigued.

I have a pro friend who believes that when he is playing his best, it is because his bridge hand is in the right place. He says he can't miss when this happens. We were trying to figure out a repeatable PSR that favored this happening or a repeatable physical trait such as a consistent head and shoulder alignment.

I have been on the receiving end when he locks in on his placement. Can this possibly be the physical feeling you get when you're in dead stroke and running out? :cool:

Best,
Mike
 
SCCues said:
I've been wanting to ask these questions for a long time and I thought the forum might be a good place to get some answers.

Do the pro players know a secret about how to aim or do they all do it the way that suits them best?

They have to know something that most of the rest of us do not know. Pro players make the game look so easy. I've had many discussions with a friend of mine about how pro players make the game look so easy and we've yet to come up with an answer. If you know exactly where to aim every shot then it boils down to execution of the fundamentals.

I'd love to hear some thoughts on why the game looks so easy when we watch the pros play. Is it hours and hours of practice, natural ability, or do they really know a secret about aiming?

James
Click to expand...

I am know pro but i have hit many ball for sure......aiming a ball from one certain angle has more than one answer .The answer on how to pocket ball with success is where the cb has to be for the next shot.
The aiming line is always going to change for certain type of hits on the cb. You or no one else can get away from this,it will always be...

The type of shaft you use will play into effect on how you aim.....
There are certain type of hits that create different outcomes,the one for me that creates the most trouble is the dead center hit on the cb at a fast speed ,the outcome is sometimes not what u want...

This is just my 2 cents ,,,,just trying to help,,
 
8pack said:
I am know pro but i have hit many ball for sure......aiming a ball from one certain angle has more than one answer .The answer on how to pocket ball with success is where the cb has to be for the next shot.
The aiming line is always going to change for certain type of hits on the cb. You or no one else can get away from this,it will always be...

The type of shaft you use will play into effect on how you aim.....
There are certain type of hits that create different outcomes,the one for me that creates the most trouble is the dead center hit on the cb at a fast speed ,the outcome is sometimes not what u want...

This is just my 2 cents ,,,,just trying to help,,
Click to expand...

I'll take your 2 cents and raise you...
Hitting the CB hard acentuates the minute flaws in your stroke, like tightening up on your grip, what you have to do, that you don't when you are stroking smooth.

What I do is to hit straight in shots with a hard hit and see if I am off of straight. If I am off, I change my stance until I can hit the CB hard and get the desired result. I have that problem on jacked up shots, when I raise the butt of the cue and shoot, I am off line. I find that for me, I need to stroke with the cue farther away from my body to get on line.

What ever works when practicing your problem shots.:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
Sure. If you believe that aim-and-pivot and/or backhand english are effective, then it follows that (as Dr. Dave mentioned above) whether you make the shot or not depends more on whether your bridge hand is placed accurately than on whether you come through straight and hit the spot on the cue ball you intend. Yet often the accurate placement of the bridge hand (which is, if you accept the above, the real part of aiming) is glossed over in instruction and in particular in discussion of aiming systems (or methods or techniques). Get your bridge hand right and the ball will go in despite your manifold inadequacies.
Click to expand...


(I can't believe you called his man fold inadequate.)

Bob, didn't you write something back on RSB about the tolerances for bridge hand placement for a long straight in? I seem to recall it was incredibly small.

Lou Figueroa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top