My opinion of aiming system, in case anybody give a damn

alstl

alstl

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
First, every top pro has an aiming system, some are able to describe their system better than others.

Second, while learning the aiming system of a top pro may improve the game of an average player, he still won't play like a top pro.

For example if Willie Mosoni had written a book describing his aiming system, people aren't suddenly going to start running 500 balls.

Einstein wrote detailed explanations and gave lectures on his theories but he himself said nobody else completely understood them.

That is all, carry on.
 
Last edited:
alstl said:
First, every top pro has an aiming system, some are able to describe their system better than others.

Second, while learning the aiming system of a top pro may improve the game of an average player, he still won't play like a top pro.

For example if Willie Mosoni had written a book describing his aiming system, people aren't suddenly going to start running 500 balls.

That is all, carry on.
Click to expand...

Mosconi was so good he can't write a book. But! guys now days are so good that even if they can't write....well that dose not make sense. I'm working on a system its called the C. system.
 
I don't have an opinion but I do find it odd how many there are out there and some people hype up a few of them.
 
C.Milian said:
Mosconi was so good he can't write a book. But! guys now days are so good that even if they can't write....well that dose not make sense. I'm working on a system its called the C. system.
Click to expand...

Uh.......okay
 
Here's my take on aiming systems.

We all stand a bit differently, we all think a bit differently, we all visualize a bit differently. Some aiming systems fall nicely into the way certain people cue the ball naturally, while for others it does not work for them. Some won't even understand what the hell you're talking about.

In an attempt to make an analogy, poor as it might be, it's like that trick drawing of the face. Some people see the smiling young girl, while others see the wicked old witch lady. If you're teaching a system to someone who sees it, then it's great, if they don't see it, it's a ridiculous waste.

Finding the one that works for you both visually as well as understanding it can help improve your game, at least in terms of confidence and consistency, but I don't think all systems can ever work equally well for everyone considering our individual differences.

An aiming system that works well for you can help eliminate that distracting variable of sighting shots and that unsure feeling about whether you're on target or not. That lets you devote a bit more toward delivering the CB on the line you are now confident is correct. ( I strongly feel you are not able to deliver the CB in a straight line to your target if you are not sure of that target, and I also feel that accurate delivery should be the ultimate goal.)

Pool has so many variables, help eliminating even one can improve your consistency.

On the other hand, I believe that trying to teach a specific system as gospel to a group of people who all stand, sight, and stroke differently is bound to result in some of those people, if not all of them at any given time, to say it's a bunch of smoke and mirrors and of no value.

When you stumble upon the people who see it like you see it, then it works. So, IMO, by definition, it's an individual, hit or miss thing. No more, no less. :shrug:
 
You pretty much figure out early on where you have to put the cue ball to hit the object ball and make it go in. I believe that if I could crawl inside your head and see the shot as YOU shoot it, it would look totally foreign-but your mechanics are adjusted to your sight picture (whatever that is), not mine. As you advance, you start to figure out what you need to do to avoid/compensate for throw. As for squirt/deflection, well I hadn't heard of such a thing until 10 years down the road when a 14 year old kid was showing off his brand new predator cue and set about "proving" how bad my Schon deflected...to me it was (and still is) irrelevant. I figured out my own way of putting the cue ball where it needed to go, regardless of what kind of cue/shaft/tip I was using. The only true way to learn how to do it (aim) is to do it until it works, then repeat.

I'm not saying an aiming system is necessarily bad, just not necessary. There are so many infinite, small things that affect how you get the cue ball where it's needed, that NO one system will get you there...just hundreds of thousands of shots. Your version of "yellow" is different than mine...we'll both pick the right ball that's yellow, but if I used your eyes it might look "red" to me.
 
West Point 1987 said:
I'm not saying an aiming system is necessarily bad, just not necessary.
Click to expand...


Whenever anyone plays pool, and gets down over a shot, and they aim to shoot the ball, they are using an aiming system, whatever it is for them, never-the-less, it's a system they use, therefore, an aiming system. So, one way or another, an aiming system is most certainly necessary so long as they are shooting with their eyes open. :)
 
alstl said:
First, every top pro has an aiming system, some are able to describe their system better than others.

Second, while learning the aiming system of a top pro may improve the game of an average player, he still won't play like a top pro.

For example if Willie Mosoni had written a book describing his aiming system, people aren't suddenly going to start running 500 balls.

Einstein wrote detailed explanations and gave lectures on his theories but he himself said nobody else completely understood them.

That is all, carry on.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the term system with technique. These are not systems but training methods. If someone can teach a newer player some techniques that can train them to be a better more consistent player isn't that the goal?. You think Mosconi didn't use systems, it depends on what you consider a system. The way he moved around the table, often laid his cue on the table prier to getting down, the speed he played with were all techniques he trained himself to do.

Call them systems, techniques or even fundamentals it is all the same, attempting to play a more consistent game and looking for something that will train you to do it. I love the word "Training" because that is what it is. No magic, mystery or secrets, just methodical training like you will find in any sport. Pool may be the only game where players think they need to learn on their own, re-inventing the wheel every new generation. Strange.
 
3andstop said:
Whenever anyone plays pool, and gets down over a shot, and they aim to shoot the ball, they are using an aiming system, whatever it is for them, never-the-less, it's a system they use, therefore, an aiming system. So, one way or another, an aiming system is most certainly necessary so long as they are shooting with their eyes open. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, that's not what I mean...when I say "system" I'm talking about a packaged, specific method that someone attempts to teach you, as opposed to what you see in your mind (actually and predictably) when YOU line up. It might work for some, but putting two spherical objects together using precise reference points just gets you started and ignores the infinite angles of possibilities. Until they put gun sights on a cue ball, shooting a pool shot is like shooting a free throw. You might have someone teach you to stand at a certain spot on the free throw line, shift your left foot three inches to the right, aim the bottom of the basketball at the left edge of a standard net and make the shot--or you could just figure out how to deliver the basketball to the correct angle/spot with your own "system" (visualizing success and repeating what works). That not only works for free throws, but will also work for shots from other spots on the court.
 
There are systems for playing pool when a system is defined as “A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.“ (American Heritage Dictionary). Some instructional schools such as SPF indeed have a systems approach to the game because they perceive (and teach) the interrelationships between many interacting, interrelated parts that result in a complex whole pattern of play.

How one uses a system or the person’s individual style could be thought of as that person’s technique when using the systematic approach. Use of such a system does not of course make one an excellent player but it does make one a better player because it adds to one’s consistency.

There are “aiming” systems that depend upon a set of interrelated principles and these approaches are more or less useful depending on one’s technique and willingness to learn to apply the principles involved.

Like many things in life some systems are better than other systems and it is unfortunate that most of what we have are anecdotal reports. Unbiased comparisons by people who took the time to learn more than one system and then compared systems would be of much use.

It is likely that some systems are “better” for some people depending upon the individual’s characteristics. Here too we have insufficient information to reach any sound conclusions.

One way to look at a systems approach is to consider an automobile driving course of instruction. These formal courses are systematic. Students all learn the same principles and to some extent the same techniques. The results are only somewhat consistent across people. However, if you consider insurance companies studies of traffic accidents and the contribution from attending a driving school it is readily apparent (in terms of monetary reductions in premiums) that attending a driving school does contribute to fewer traffic accidents though the students may use different techniques upon completion. And probably none of them become race car drivers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top