Wouldn't he be looking at the side of the cueball instead on cut shots ?
TAR Podcast #8 - Shane - Fransisco - Shane Talks About His Aiming Method
- Thread starter Fast Lenny
- Start date
Wouldn't he be looking at the side of the cueball instead on cut shots ?
Thanks for the kind words pvc Lou. I try to be fair with everyone I deal with and in most cases I give others the benefit of the doubt.
You're right about some of Lou's posts. Some of them are quality posts, while others are in your words, maybe not "pure meanness" but mean nevertheless. Some of his words "bite". His style can be "dismissive". Unfortunately, I don't have the stomach to standby and see him continue to take "jabs" at forum members.
You seem like quite a nice guy and perhaps you can overlook these virtues of lou.
If it were simply a matter of stating our opinions and ideas without regard to others' (dis)agreement, I wouldn't have a problem at all. In fact, I agree with some naysayers about points they make about aiming systems. And the truth is that I really don't care if anyone uses an aiming system or not.
This forum is for all to enjoy. This is not a place to come and bully people because you aren't happy with whatever you're not happy about. This forum isn't a place where you can just call people names just because you don't agree with them. This forum has rules and the rules are for everyone to obey. Lou has made a habit of regularly breaking those rules and he should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
Unfortunately pvc lou, there are people who see the ad hominem attacks by Lou and find other things to do besides contributing to the forum. There are many who find his "style of posting" repulsive but remain silent and simply go find other things more pleasant to do.
If you disagree with me, I can live with that. I won't call you a numnuts, a snake-oil salesman, delusional or a host of other despicable names. I'll just say that you and I have different tolerances for bad behavior.
When Lou plays nice on the playground, he won't have people trying to hang him in effigy like they are doing over at Jimbo's Army where that forum has rules similar to the wild west.
Few of you guys know me 'cause I post mostly in the 14.1 forum. I'm well versed on the HAMB vs aiming system debate, and I had two reactions after plowing through most of this enormous and detail-oriented thread ("he aims the left edge of the shaft to the center of the contact point, except when he needs another 1.5 degrees of angle, in which case he uses a wrist twist except if the moon is full"):
1. I took some pointers from a guy who went by the name "Pete Charles" in Houston back in the 90's. (Anybody know him?) Anyway, this thread reminded me of him because his approach couldn't be further from the aiming "system" approach. He would recommend setting up a particular shot and just shoot it over and over and over. He had a Zen-like approach to things, and said that you just need to let your brain figure things out. You aren't capable of really aiming the shot correctly because of the curvature of the balls and all the other variables, but your subconscious brain will figure out how to put that ball in the pocket. I realize this is the HAMB method, but it is really a better explanation of what is happening with HAMB. When described this way, I suppose it is an aiming system like any other. You just have to be observant and let your brain figure it out.
2. I'm not trying to belittle anybody here, but I have to say if people spent even 1/10th the energy learning how to control the cue ball path and speed, then they'd be much better players. When's the last time a heated argument broke out over how to control the speed of the cue ball? Who here thinks speed control isn't as important as aiming? What pro players have a trick to help them control the speed of the cue ball, and which ones just HAMB?
It strikes me that there is no substitute for hard work, and the benefit of an aiming system decreases as the quality of player increases. I mean, does anybody REALLY believe that Johnny Archer can't just step up to the table and pocket a ball within 3 seconds just on feel? I realize there are special situations where an aiming system is a good trick (like where to put the cue ball on a spot shot to make a 1/2 ball hit), and it may even be a good framework for less advanced players, but IMO, I think maybe "less is more" in aiming. Let your subconscious figure it out until the shots just look right -- and once it looks right, it will always look right. Aiming is actually the easy part. Delivering the cue with a true stroke at all speeds is the real trick.
End of rant... sorry to butt in.
1. I took some pointers from a guy who went by the name "Pete Charles" in Houston back in the 90's. (Anybody know him?) Anyway, this thread reminded me of him because his approach couldn't be further from the aiming "system" approach. He would recommend setting up a particular shot and just shoot it over and over and over. He had a Zen-like approach to things, and said that you just need to let your brain figure things out. You aren't capable of really aiming the shot correctly because of the curvature of the balls and all the other variables, but your subconscious brain will figure out how to put that ball in the pocket. I realize this is the HAMB method, but it is really a better explanation of what is happening with HAMB. When described this way, I suppose it is an aiming system like any other. You just have to be observant and let your brain figure it out.
2. I'm not trying to belittle anybody here, but I have to say if people spent even 1/10th the energy learning how to control the cue ball path and speed, then they'd be much better players. When's the last time a heated argument broke out over how to control the speed of the cue ball? Who here thinks speed control isn't as important as aiming? What pro players have a trick to help them control the speed of the cue ball, and which ones just HAMB?
It strikes me that there is no substitute for hard work, and the benefit of an aiming system decreases as the quality of player increases. I mean, does anybody REALLY believe that Johnny Archer can't just step up to the table and pocket a ball within 3 seconds just on feel? I realize there are special situations where an aiming system is a good trick (like where to put the cue ball on a spot shot to make a 1/2 ball hit), and it may even be a good framework for less advanced players, but IMO, I think maybe "less is more" in aiming. Let your subconscious figure it out until the shots just look right -- and once it looks right, it will always look right. Aiming is actually the easy part. Delivering the cue with a true stroke at all speeds is the real trick.
End of rant... sorry to butt in.
Last edited:
Few of you guys know me 'cause I post mostly in the 14.1 forum. I'm well versed on the HAMB vs aiming system debate, and I had two reactions after plowing through most of this enormous and detail-oriented thread ("he aims the left edge of the shaft to the center of the contact point, except when he needs another 1.5 degrees of angle, in which case he uses a wrist twist except if the moon is full"):
1. I took some pointers from a guy who went by the name "Pete Charles" in Houston back in the 90's. (Anybody know him?) Anyway, this thread reminded me of him because his approach couldn't be further from the aiming "system" approach. He would recommend setting up a particular shot and just shoot it over and over and over. He had a Zen-like approach to things, and said that you just need to let your brain figure things out. You aren't capable of really aiming the shot correctly because of the curvature of the balls and all the other variables, but your subconscious brain will figure out how to put that ball in the pocket. I realize this is the HAMB method, but it is really a better explanation of what is happening with HAMB. When described this way, I suppose it is an aiming system like any other. You just have to be observant and let your brain figure it out.
2. I'm not trying to belittle anybody here, but I have to say if people spent even 1/10th the energy learning how to control the cue ball path and speed, then they'd be much better players. When's the last time a heated argument broke out over how to control the speed of the cue ball? Who here thinks speed control isn't as important as aiming? What pro players have a trick to help them control the speed of the cue ball, and which ones just HAMB?
It strikes me that there is no substitute for hard work, and the benefit of an aiming system decreases as the quality of player increases. I mean, does anybody REALLY believe that Johnny Archer can't just step up to the table and pocket a ball within 3 seconds just on feel? I realize there are special situations where an aiming system is a good trick (like where to put the cue ball on a spot shot to make a 1/2 ball hit), and it may even be a good framework for less advanced players, but IMO, I think maybe "less is more" in aiming. Let your subconscious figure it out until the shots just look right -- and once it looks right, it will always look right. Aiming is actually the easy part. Delivering the cue with a true stroke at all speeds is the real trick.
End of rant... sorry to butt in.
Dear Dan.
Talked to Archer about this when I saw him in China two months ago. You might be surprised at what he says.
It's not a trick.
When you have an aiming system that works then you have a good chance to make shots in game situations that you have not ever tried before in your life.
I understand your friend's approach. It was my approach as well and it helped me to get to a pretty decent level as a player.
However you can set up shots for hours and still not really get better because what you are doing is dialing in on that shot only. You are not learning to perfect a technique that you can use for all shots.
Developing a great stroke works for all shots.
Acquiring a precise touch works for all shots.
Learning to aim properly works for all shots.
Learning a banking system works for all shots.
Learning a kicking system works for all shots.
Once you learn these things THEN practicing repetitively pays off WAY WAY WAY better. That's when working a shot for hours gives you some really deep learning and true skill building.
The point of this thread is that the current best American player, Shane Van Boening, is on the record as saying that HE uses an aiming system and WHY he uses it.
Nothing against your teacher but what we are looking for is confirmation from professional players as to what they do and why they do it. Us amateurs can debate all day about what techniques are better but we can't really PROVE any of it in any way that's meaningful.
Shane on the other hand can say what works for him in a way that is meaningful because he has the victories and accomplishments and experience to back up what he says. So it can't HURT us to listen to him and try to emulate what he says he does.
He was asked why he addresses the bottom of the cue ball while taking the practice strokes. He said it's because that's how the Filipinos do it and it seems to work well for him. So if Shane can admit that he copies great players just because they are great without knowing WHY they do it can we do any less?
You gave your example of your teacher and what his approach was. Well if we are using examples of teachers and their approach then I want to copy and follow the guys who stay on top.
He said clearly that he aims the side of the ferrule at the edge of the object ball for thin cuts. He aid that he does not use or look at the cue ball at all.
He is essentially using his cue and looking from it THROUGH the cue ball to the object ball.
Afaik that only works with inside english.
I've seen impossible thin cuts frozen on the end rail shot that way.
If the contact point is more than half a ferrule's width from center of the ob, geometrically, I don't think that works ( on center ball hits ).
I think he aims the side of the ferrule away from the edge of ob on thin cuts.
I disagree. If you set up a particular shot and master it, then when presented with similar, but not the same angles, you will know to shoot a little more full or thin because it feels right.
I use my own "systems" for determining where the cue ball is going, so I'm a believer in systems. However, particularly for aim, I think people take the aiming system as a shortcut to putting in the hours (looking for that "holy grail" trick that every pro knows but won't tell anybody). I know, because I've fallen into that trap before. Just about EVERY system works great initially because you are paying attention to everything (contact points, stroke, cleaning up the table) very closely. If you just put that much energy into observing the contact point and stroking properly, you'd pocket way more balls, too.
I agree that if Archer and Shane and whoever aim this way or that way it is worth taking note. It is equally important to note that both of these guys do nothing but shoot pool for years.
I say be careful watching what professional players do. Lemme give an example from tennis. One of the worst things you can do is watch a pro on TV and then try to do what they do on the court. They have such good fundamentals that they are able to hit the snot out of the ball, and do it properly. That image seeps into your subconscious and when you get on the court, you end up screwing up your fundamentals and just start whacking at the ball.
I'm all for techniques that help accelerate the learning process. I use those all the time for position. However good it is to debate aiming techniques, I just wanted to throw in some perspective. If the end goal is to improve one's game, evaluate where your game needs improvement most. I'd be willing to bet the farm that aim is low on the list compared to position play. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say that most decent players are at a 7 or 8 on pocketing ability, and at a 3 or 4 on position play. I mean, if your position is good you won't need to aim so hard, right? :wink:
Also, you are surprisingly diplomatic for someone who dropped out of Dale Carnegie.
I understand this and on the surface it seems like this would be true. But in fact slight changes in angle often make the shot go from easy to very hard. I don't discount the need to shoot shots and get super comfortable with them. I am just saying that mastering one shot does not necessarily make you a master of all similar shots.
And in fact the research into talent and skill bears this out to a degree. What has been shown is that when someone specializes in one area they can become very very good in that area but be average or below average in other areas where one would assume that their incredible aptitude in the area they mastered would translate to the other skills.
Well it's human nature to look for better ways to do things. It's the entire reason we are where we are as a species. There are shortcuts to getting better at pool though. But the real question is where are you after certain milestones? So let's use balls hit as a meter. Two beginners start at the same time. One reads Byrne's book and the other one does not. Where are they after 1000 balls? After 10,000? 100,000 and one million?
Well I would say that after 1000 the person who read the book is clearly better. After 10,000 the book reader is still better, after 100,000 they are close, and after 1,000,000 it's who handles pressure better as skill wise they are dead equal.
Of course but the fact is that they DO something systematic and they are not only aware of it they can explain it and most importantly they trust it.
Well the research does not agree with you. The research shows that one of the best things you can do is to imitate the best you can find. You should pick up Talent is Overrated and The Talent Code to learn what the extensive research in this subject proves.
You'd lose the farm if you took my game as an example. if we did the target pool test ten years ago before I learned any aiming system then I could place the cue ball on the target every time from any position as long as it was physically possible to get it there.
But the thing is that while some folks are looking for a silver bullet most are just looking for something to mess with in the time they have to play. If an aiming method helps them then great if not then they can leave it. At the end of the day the proof is in whether they win more or not. If a person uses any method and gets better then great and if they don't then they should try something else.
Also, you are surprisingly diplomatic for someone who dropped out of Dale Carnegie.
I have a system for it.
Hang around long enough and you will see why I dropped out.....
Well Dennis Walsh put up a video where Shane specifically says that he does not aim off the object ball at all. He says that he would be lost if he did that.
So perhaps he does what you say without knowing it but all we have to go on is what he says he does do.
Again I don't think that Shane is seeing this method as a measuring device. He is not using the width of the ball in relation to the width of his ferrule to find the contact point.
What I got out of Dennis' video is that Shane starts with the object ball's edge and moves into the shot using his ferrule or middle of the shaft to point at the object ball where the contact point is. I assume he simply does this so that he has a consistent orientation to settle into the shot. In effect he simplifies the process into defining the edge, moving from there to the contact point, using his stick to point at the contact point and thus aligning his body to match that line.
And he trusts that line and shoots and is consistent with it.
Don't misunderstand. I'm saying that you can get fooled into doing the wrong thing by watching a professional. Of course you want to emulate good mechanics, but the average amateur cannot do what he sees a professional do (at least in tennis). Copying some of their mechanics would be a disaster for the amateur. In pool, it's great to emulate how still and methodical a pro is, and how they follow through and so on. But, again, you have to be careful. Would you teach a beginner to use an 18" bridge, aim the cue at the cloth and then hit follow? Maybe Shane aims a certain way because he's gotten to the point where it works for him. That doesn't mean it works for anybody else.
The other problem in pool is that we are still arguing about what good fundamentals are. For instance, in tennis or golf there are specific body motions necessary to do it right. In pool we're still arguing about how to aim at a ball. Is Shane's method a fundamental that nobody has discovered yet, and should be incorporated in every BCA instructor's manual? We don't know, but I have a feeling after 100 years of the game that the important fundamentals are already known.
Agreed.
I went there to see what you were talking about. It appears Lou is a member there too and gave them a little fuel for their fire.
You're right about Lou's posting style. I'm guessing most people haven't got a good feel for just how nasty he can get because he usually only lets loose in the aiming system threads.
If this thread had stayed on topic more people would've probably contributed but when a few feel the need to cut down others because they disagree it turns them off and like you said, "find more pleasant things to do". He's been like that since the days of RSB. If the silent majority doesn't speak up then the moderators may not be aware there is a problem.
You make a excellent point.
I would think that true discourse over the subject of aiming, is all but impossible on this forum.
If you have a thread about an aiming system working, or a thread about how an aiming system doesn't work, the opposite team will interject their thoughts on the matter, each and every time. Even if it's just one person disagreeing, everyone else on that persons team will rush to their aid, and then the usual arguments occur.
There will never be an aiming discussion utopia, unless someone forms their own group like JB did, so that they could have discussions about various aspects they want to learn, without interruption.
If you go over the various threads, you will see that it is the same exact argument, by the exact same people, time and time again.
It never ends.
And, most likely, a lot of the arguments happen because it's a fresh new slate.
Since there was never the creation of an aiming sub-forum, those old threads get lost, and then, when someone starts a new thread, everyone feels the need to make sure their opinion gets in there cause they don't want the opposing team to dominate it with their sides opinion.
If you had an aiming sub forum where all the aiming threads were collected, there probably wouldn't be the need for that many new aiming threads, and the arguments wouldn't repeat themselves as much because all the other aiming threads that went down the drain, would be directly below the new thread. It would save everyone a whole lot of time.
But nothing will change in the current format. Whenever aiming is mentioned, it will turn into the same redundant thread, over and over, ad nauseum.
You make a good point. Maybe the aiming threads should be confined to a sub-forum. It seems like a toxic subject that brings out the worst in people.
Lou Figawhatever is pretty much the last remaining naysayer that still coming into these threads to stir shit up and he cant really say much anymore since we now know shane uses a system and edges of balls. I think now we are good to go and those of us who like to chat about this kind of stuff should be able to now :thumbup:
I don't think aiming threads are the problem because I don't have any problem with posters saying that aiming systems don't work and they know because of this that and the other. Everyone is entitled to their perspectives no matter how ridiculous their assertions might be.
THE PROBLEM has been and continues to be a few who think they can ridicule others who don't think like they do.
THE PROBLEM is that a few THINK it is just fine to "slyly" peck away at another's livelihood, trying to make good and decent people look like "snake-oil salesmen".
THE PROBLEM is that a few like to think it is FUN to label others as numnuts, delusional, thieves, stupid etc.
THE PROBLEM is that a few like to make condescending remarks about forum members just because it makes them feel better about themselves.
THE PROBLEM is that a few like to choose their words carefully all the while making negative innuendos about others just for sport.
DISAGREEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROBLEM.
The problem isn't limited to either side for the majority of what you said.
All you have to do is read this thread and that is made perfectly clear.
As for snake-oil, i understand where you are coming from about people deliberately trying to discredit a product. You will hear no argument from me about that.
But for the people who actually purchase something, aren't they allowed to think what they want about it? For better or for worse?
What if someone bought a product that you yourself endorsed, and they didn't like it, and then came on here and complained?
How would you feel?
All you have to do is look at where the shit starts and it almost always starts with one particular individual, Lou. Patrick is gone now, banished to never-never land.
Complaining about a product not working for you is one thing but when you start labeling good and decent people as snake oil salesman, you are slandering their good name, ESPECIALLY when some people claim to have received benefits from that product.
Some people have an agenda and at times I think it goes as far back as Hal Houle.
Hal Houle the originator of CTE once chastized both Lou Figueroa and Patrick Johnson for their snide remarks about him and CTE.
Ever since then, the two of them have been on a crusade to vilify the poor man, anyone who happens to use CTE and anyone who happens to teach CTE. These two transferred their resentment on to CTE/Pro One, that instructor and anyone else who uses that aiming system.
With the continuous re-birthing of aiming systems, it looks like they are still trying their best to stir the pot and make it look like they were right about all of the negative things they said about aiming systems.
As more and more pro players come out and discuss their particular aiming systems, it just proves that the naysayers were wrong, nothing more.
But you're right, anyone has the right to discuss product benefits both positive and negative. They just don't have the right to use demagougery as their platform of expression, just to try and save their reputation.
Hal Houle and CTE system are the same ?
Lenny started the thread with the statement that he hoped that Shane conclusively stating he uses an aiming system would quiet the naysayers.
Saying that is like throwing gasoline on the fire because then of course someone on the other side MUST respond and say something to diminish or discredit Shane's revelation.
It's almost hardwired in our DNA that in a long running debate no one concedes any point without SOME kind of protest.
I think that if Lenny had not made that statement then maybe we could have had a discussion on ONLY what Shane said and tried to figure it out.
The upside is that it led to a video being posted where Shane is giving a lesson of sorts and in that video (and in the TARCAST) there are a LOT of good solid tips if one pays attention. Things that go far beyond aiming if one is REALLY interested in becoming a credible player.