Aim System or Common sense?

sfleinen said:
Matt:

Wow! Talk about pointing an in-operation hair dryer under the bed, and watching the dust bunnies roll out! This is a dust bunny from the recent past.
Click to expand...

Sean - You sure he didn't throw the hair dryer in your bath tub, while you were in it? You should be taking showers anyways.
 
I have helped a lot of players that tell me someone told them to do "x" and "x" had been ruining them for years.

I'm sure I'll run into some poor guy driving balls straight into the rail that says he learned from About.com

Complete rubbish with no good excuses for it.
 
sfleinen said:
Matt:

Wow! Talk about pointing an in-operation hair dryer under the bed, and watching the dust bunnies roll out! This is a dust bunny from the recent past.

Anyway, getting to the heart of the matter, here are some bulletized thoughts of my own (in no particular order, and certainly not in the order that you bulleted your points):

1. You're an obviously intelligent person, with great writing skills, and a "style" about your writing. However, please be careful with your innuendos about "geometers" or "armchair pool players" (that latter one added by me, as a direct conclusion of your innuendo). There are REAL pool players here, some of us even know which end of the cue is which. And, no offense, being a writer for a general/topical site like "About.com" isn't exactly a de-facto authoritative reference, nor is it a guarantee that the writers there are subject matter experts. While you (and your articles) personally may be an exception (believe me, I know who you are, and I respect you), many of the "articles" posted there are either too topical/generic (i.e. tailored to the average Joe/Jane Q. Public), or very suspect in their accuracy.

2. I find it an odd paradox that you mention Richard Kranicki's great work, "Answer to a Pool Player's Prayers," yet you advocate an approach which seems to EMBRACE parallax error, not fix it as Kranicki instructs. You mention that many pros "think" they're aiming "here" but their cue is actually pointing over "there." I find that odd, because most pros that I know, know exactly where their cue is pointing, and can demonstrate it convincingly. (I'm talking about the Tony Robles types, who also offer instruction, by the way.) Kranicki's work is dedicated to finding out *why* your cue isn't pointing where you think it is, and devotes much of the content of the book to fixing it, not "building in" compensation for it.

3. You mention about CP-to-CP and ghostball both need adjustments. Of course this is true -- CIT is a very real thing, and needs to be incorporated in the aim. However, one should NEVER be making adjustments once down on the shot. Or very rarely. You aim while standing, you execute on that aim when down on the shot.

4. In the spirit of what "Answer to a Pool Player's Prayers" was about, one should identify the root cause of missed shots, not "build in compensation" for them. If one is overcutting balls continually, one should find out *why* it's happening -- not compensate for it by aiming directly at the contact point (which tells me, at least, that there's either a parallax problem there [head/eye alignment issue] or a cue delivery problem).

Many pool players (and specifically pool players, as opposed to snooker players) have problems with fundamentals. The "standing at a 45-degree angle to the cue" pool player stance presents its own issues with lack of repeatable precision, specifically with precise placement of body parts and joints in line with the shot line, and with head/eye alignment. That latter one, by the way, is a biggie. Enough so, that it spawned an entire branch of pool instruction (SPF), and information/products designed to deal with the many holes in pool's approach to fundamentals (e.g. Kranicki's work, Gene Albrecht's follow-on product called "perfect aim," etc.).

In summary, I realize that you're targeting that article at the average Joe/Jane Q. Public recreational pool player, but the intent of the discussion here, on these very subject-focused forums, is to discuss why, long-term, it's not the correct approach to take.

Respectfully,
-Sean
Click to expand...
1. Wow! some hurting people here have clearly been burned by "aim systems". I understand and that's why I came to the thread reluctantly after seeing my article cited out of context.

2. About.com as a company seeks fans to write about fandom, if you want to think of it that way. They know that hiring a fan of fast food will produce better writing (and more writing) than someone who is hired to write in a subject they don't care for. About is for "beginners and up" and I'm one of the rare writers there who offers instruction in the subject as much as observation.

There are highly intelligent readers and writers at AZ and I was not looking to slur anyone.

3. The adjustments I mentioned to both G.B. and C.P. aim have to do with # 3 below and with Kranicki's views not on parallax aiming but on false ball equators send while erect and yes, adjustments should be made in their air, certainly, of course.

However, the average players who lines up contact point and then with their eyes and mind decides to hit still thicker than that while in the full stance still is likely pointed more thinly and will stroke there also.

4. I can restate it this way also. There will be some "rail drivers" who take my advice but they are VERY rare exceptions. The average player does not aim and/or stroke to where they think they've aimed. If they did, they'd sink more balls more often, right? Everyone would play at an A-B level or more.

Most players stroke more thinly than they aim on the object ball. Most amateur ghost ball players constantly and severly overcut shots as one consequence; contact point players tend to stroke more thinly than contact point and score more often.

Again, if you hit a ball more thick, yet use a soft or soft-medium stroke, you generate more throw than the "bangers" do.

I've shown many fine players to hit challenging cut shots more thick and they say, "It won't pocket that way." And I say, "Humor me, and hit a few thick yet with that soft stroke we've been working on." And they pocket shots that are "tough" for them several times in a row and soon realize they have gone to a whole new pool game.

5. Part of the "pros spin balls" in that is mentioned in this thread is due to the fact that the pros take softer strokes than a lot of people realize:

My Recent Article - 10 Reasons Why Pros Shoot Most Balls Softly

Many readers have been to a pro tournament in person where the sound of cue tip to cue ball is barely heard. TV employes close up microphones where contact sound is exaggerated and enhanced.

Another aspect of "pros spin balls so they go geometric" has to do with them using, tiny, fractional amounts of english. Very little indeed. But know that most "say" they line up on the contact point.

6. My "geometers" comment was not intended to patronize or insult any readers but rather to forestall yet more comments about how "contact point is too thick" and "ghost ball is geometrically accurate". I know both those facts already as probably 98% of AZ readers know it.

But then ask yourself why so many top players say they aim contact point instead (and then edge-to-edge/eclipsing/sliding like others have said on this thread for thin hits)?

They are being honest about their aim methods and desire to contact the object ball more thick than a ghost ball hit.
 
BilliardsAbout said:
1. Wow! some hurting people here have clearly been burned by "aim systems". I understand and that's why I came to the thread reluctantly after seeing my article cited out of context.

2. About.com as a company seeks fans to write about fandom, if you want to think of it that way. They know that hiring a fan of fast food will produce better writing (and more writing) than someone who is hired to write in a subject they don't care for. About is for "beginners and up" and I'm one of the rare writers there who offers instruction in the subject as much as observation.

There are highly intelligent readers and writers at AZ and I was not looking to slur anyone.

3. The adjustments I mentioned to both G.B. and C.P. aim have to do with # 3 below and with Kranicki's views not on parallax aiming but on false ball equators send while erect and yes, adjustments should be made in their air, certainly, of course.

However, the average players who lines up contact point and then with their eyes and mind decides to hit still thicker than that while in the full stance still is likely pointed more thinly and will stroke there also.

4. I can restate it this way also. There will be some "rail drivers" who take my advice but they are VERY rare exceptions. The average player does not aim and/or stroke to where they think they've aimed. If they did, they'd sink more balls more often, right? Everyone would play at an A-B level or more.

Most players stroke more thinly than they aim on the object ball. Most amateur ghost ball players constantly and severly overcut shots as one consequence; contact point players tend to stroke more thinly than contact point and score more often.

Again, if you hit a ball more thick, yet use a soft or soft-medium stroke, you generate more throw than the "bangers" do.

I've shown many fine players to hit challenging cut shots more thick and they say, "It won't pocket that way." And I say, "Humor me, and hit a few thick yet with that soft stroke we've been working on." And they pocket shots that are "tough" for them several times in a row and soon realize they have gone to a whole new pool game.

5. Part of the "pros spin balls" in that is mentioned in this thread is due to the fact that the pros take softer strokes than a lot of people realize:

My Recent Article - 10 Reasons Why Pros Shoot Most Balls Softly

Many readers have been to a pro tournament in person where the sound of cue tip to cue ball is barely heard. TV employes close up microphones where contact sound is exaggerated and enhanced.

Another aspect of "pros spin balls so they go geometric" has to do with them using, tiny, fractional amounts of english. Very little indeed. But know that most "say" they line up on the contact point.

6. My "geometers" comment was not intended to patronize or insult any readers but rather to forestall yet more comments about how "contact point is too thick" and "ghost ball is geometrically accurate". I know both those facts already as probably 98% of AZ readers know it.

But then ask yourself why so many top players say they aim contact point instead (and then edge-to-edge/eclipsing/sliding like others have said on this thread for thin hits)?

They are being honest about their aim methods and desire to contact the object ball more thick than a ghost ball hit.
Click to expand...
Ugh. Sorry for the poor typing. I meant, "not on parallax aiming but on false ball equators SEEN while erect," which comes nearly at the end of Kranicki's work but is one of the most important of his findings IMHO.

I meant to write, "TV EMPLOYS boom microphones" and I also wanted to put, ""pros spin balls in" all in quotes.

Again, and I'm so glad you mentioned this so I might apologize and explain, in no way did I intend to disrepect anyone with that "geometers" bit. But I just dread getting 20 insults in a thread that I'm an idiot who doesn't understand that the contact point will cause over-thick hits on any non-straight in shot.

I'm going on a limb discussing this aim method and want honest discourse, not one-sentence flames. And the unkind About.com comment was upsetting. You CAN do all those things at About.com as we have over 1,000 writers in diverse subjects. But I am the Pool & Billiards Guide there and am solely responsible for that content.

I did notice that my signature which says "InsidePool instruction staff" was ignored when people like Jason Lynch, Tom Simpson, Keith McCready, Freddy Bentivegna and of course quite a few other outstanding teachers and players have also had that privilege.

I did three year-long series called "The 8-Ball Debates", "Get In Shape" and one that I'm sure ticked a lot of pros and teachers off called, "The Year of Pro Secrets" in which I revealed at least one if not several things monthly pros don't tell others or don't know how to communicate to others effectively.

I've written hundreds of articles including many instruction articles for About.com and I sometimes write things I wish I hadn't. Sounds like I need to edit the particular article that was cited for clarity and I appreciate the heads up. I'll do it today if I can find time.

I write more on stance, aim and stroke than 90% of books and articles because it's important and because I have important, logical things to share with pool players.

My students adore me because I treat them with care and as a Christian, like I want to be treated--and because they pocket many more balls after the lesson than they had before.

And I'll call it like I see it--others can say over and again this "aim system," one of several I advocate as different things fit different players, "sucks". Have you tried it and want to report on results here rather than take my word for it?

I apologize for my length.
 
Palmerfan said:
Bump for tips on sighting and aim..ghostball..ETE/CTE...Contact Point..Parallel Aim..sectional aim...something
Click to expand...
Lots of information, illustrations, instructional articles, and demonstrations for many aiming systems can be found here:
including the contact-point-to-contact-point or parallel-lines system, Center-to-Edge (CTE) aiming system, double-the-distance or double-the-overlap aiming method, fractional-ball aiming, shaft-edge aiming system, etc.

I personally recommend DAM, which is a combination of several "systems," including "Practice, Practice, Practice!"

A lot of information concerning "sighting" can be found here:

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
I personally recommend DAM, which is a combination of several "systems," including "Practice, Practice, Practice!"

A lot of information concerning "sighting" can be found here:

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Dave,
Your web site DAM summary shown below contains very little information on the effects of throw on aiming:
"I visualize the necessary CB-OB contact point (to account for throw when appropriate), the necessary line-of-centers for the shot, and the entire ghost-ball."

IMO, the DAM summary could definitely use more detail about the effects of throw, such as when to account for throw and how much to account for it. Thx.
 
Last edited:
BilliardsAbout said:
5. Part of the "pros spin balls" in that is mentioned in this thread is due to the fact that the pros take softer strokes than a lot of people realize:

My Recent Article - 10 Reasons Why Pros Shoot Most Balls Softly
.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry Matt, but it's tough for me to read this without responding. I've seen as many professionals as the next person (and more than most). What you've written doesn't match reality. Pros *can* shoot softly, but they can hit hard too. They hit balls at the speed that the shot dictates. Period. To think otherwise is absurd. They aren't pros because they baby balls.

Why do pros shoot most balls softly? Ummm... they don't. So, the rest of the article is answering a question that is faulty already. Amateurs should hit shots more softly if they have problems making balls and need to use every bit of the pocket. By definition, that doesn't apply to Professionals. Good advice, but misplaced and misguided.

Pros spin balls and can spin balls because of plenty of reasons... but "pros take softer strokes" isn't even on the list. If that's what you believe, I think you're missing a lot of things.

And to those making broad-based strokes about aiming systems vs spinning a ball in... I can only say that these are not mutually exclusive. I don't know when anyone started thinking this. I shoot with many aiming systems that involve spinning a ball. I am not alone, but it's a can of worms that never gets discussed because the whole centerball aiming systems can't even get a decent discussion.

Back to reality,

Freddie
 
PoolSharkAllen said:
Dave,
Your web site DAM summary shown below contains very little information on the effects of throw on aiming:
"I visualize the necessary CB-OB contact point (to account for throw when appropriate), the necessary line-of-centers for the shot, and the entire ghost-ball."

IMO, the DAM summary could definitely use more detail about the effects of throw, such as when to account for throw and how much to account for it. Thx.
Click to expand...
The DAM page has a link to an entire resource page on this topic. Here it is:

The throw resource page also has some good information related to this topic.

Regards,
Dave
 
Cornerman said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry Matt, but it's tough for me to read this without responding. I've seen as many professionals as the next person (and more than most). What you've written doesn't match reality. Pros *can* shoot softly, but they can hit hard too. They hit balls at the speed that the shot dictates. Period. To think otherwise is absurd. They aren't pros because they baby balls.

Why do pros shoot most balls softly? Ummm... they don't. So, the rest of the article is answering a question that is faulty already. Amateurs should hit shots more softly if they have problems making balls and need to use every bit of the pocket. By definition, that doesn't apply to Professionals. Good advice, but misplaced and misguided.

Pros spin balls and can spin balls because of plenty of reasons... but "pros take softer strokes" isn't even on the list. If that's what you believe, I think you're missing a lot of things.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with Matt's assertion pros strike the ball softly, at least the ones I play do. They also use imperceptibly small amounts of English on practically every shot. The way they maneuver the CB so delicately is a joy to watch, and an education.
 
TheThaiger said:
I fully agree with Matt's assertion pros strike the ball softly, at least the ones I play do. They also use imperceptibly small amounts of English on practically every shot. The way they maneuver the CB so delicately is a joy to watch, and an education.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, we expect nothing less, TheContrarian!

I think Freddie (Cornerman) nailed it. Most pros I've ever seen hit the ball *at the appropriate speed*. What does "appropriate speed" mean? Appropriate for the shot. If the shot is a hard stun-off of the object ball to get the right angle to go to the next object ball, the pro isn't going to "baby" the shot. If the shot is a draw shot, unless the cue ball and object ball are very close together, the stroke is going to be a firm one, to prevent the draw from "burning off" on the cloth.

I mean, if one is playing on the 6-foot English blackball tables -- playing, you guessed it, blackball [8-ball] -- I can understand the common use of a soft stroke to move the cue ball around in close quarters. This is no different that barbox pool with a heavy cue ball. But playing 10-ball rotational pool on a 9-footer? You're going to need to let that stroke out a heck of a lot more than "once in a blue moon, using a baby stroke most of the time."

-Sean
 
BilliardsAbout said:
1. Wow! some hurting people here have clearly been burned by "aim systems". I understand and that's why I came to the thread reluctantly after seeing my article cited out of context.
[...]
Click to expand...

Actually Matt, since you quoted my post and responded to it with a "Wow, some hurting people ... burned by aiming systems" remark, it appears to me you didn't get the hair-dryer-blowing-dust-bunnies-out-from-under-the-bed thing. I was referring to the age of the thread (the last reply, prior to yours, was in May of last year). 'Twas just poking a bit of fun at the late reply, 's all.

BilliardsAbout said:
Ugh. Sorry for the poor typing. I meant, "not on parallax aiming but on false ball equators SEEN while erect," which comes nearly at the end of Kranicki's work but is one of the most important of his findings IMHO.

I meant to write, [...]

I apologize for my length.
Click to expand...

Actually, these corrections of what you were trying to say did help -- I did read a couple things the wrong way, and I thank you for the corrections.

However, it looks like several folks have already replied, and are spot-on with what I want to reply to you with, and that is that pros don't "baby" the majority of their shots as you're saying. Rather, they use the amount of speed necessary for the shot. Freddie (Cornerman)'s reply is spot-on.

-Sean
 
sfleinen said:
Ah yes, we expect nothing less, TheContrarian!

I think Freddie (Cornerman) nailed it. Most pros I've ever seen hit the ball *at the appropriate speed*. What does "appropriate speed" mean? Appropriate for the shot. If the shot is a hard stun-off of the object ball to get the right angle to go to the next object ball, the pro isn't going to "baby" the shot. If the shot is a draw shot, unless the cue ball and object ball are very close together, the stroke is going to be a firm one, to prevent the draw from "burning off" on the cloth.

I mean, if one is playing on the 6-foot English blackball tables -- playing, you guessed it, blackball [8-ball] -- I can understand the common use of a soft stroke to move the cue ball around in close quarters. This is no different that barbox pool with a heavy cue ball. But playing 10-ball rotational pool on a 9-footer? You're going to need to let that stroke out a heck of a lot more than "once in a blue moon, using a baby stroke most of the time."

-Sean
Click to expand...

Sorry, really can't agree there. English 8 ball is irrelevant to this, but you're wrong about that, too - slow cloths + congestion + many clusters = a lot of powerful shots.

The fact is, the really big boys control that white with minimal power, whatever the game.

And there were two sides to this debate - I HAD to choose one!
 
sfleinen said:
Actually Matt, since you quoted my post and responded to it with a "Wow, some hurting people ... burned by aiming systems" remark, it appears to me you didn't get the hair-dryer-blowing-dust-bunnies-out-from-under-the-bed thing. I was referring to the age of the thread (the last reply, prior to yours, was in May of last year). 'Twas just poking a bit of fun at the late reply, 's all.



Actually, these corrections of what you were trying to say did help -- I did read a couple things the wrong way, and I thank you for the corrections.

However, it looks like several folks have already replied, and are spot-on with what I want to reply to you with, and that is that pros don't "baby" the majority of their shots as you're saying. Rather, they use the amount of speed necessary for the shot. Freddie (Cornerman)'s reply is spot-on.

-Sean
Click to expand...
Nah, we're good! My "hurting people bit" had nothing to do with your posts. Just trying to weed out the one-sentence "you're a schmuck" posts.

All, please understand that when someone uses a very light grip on the stick and takes a full yet subtle stroke, they hit the ball softly. Not trying to patronize here but the "necessary" speed is as was said by another an economy of movement.

I do not wish to reprint the article here, indeed, no one can as the content is copyrighted at About.com, but I offered the first ten reasons I could think of that the pros shoot softly (usually!) here:

Ten Things You'll Learn By Shooting More Softly

You can always recall Mosconi's favorite three strokes speeds, "...Soft, softer and softest!"
 
Here are three illustrations with some common aim methods. The final illustration shows how some pros direct their eyesight, aim and will at the contact point while aligning their cue closer to a ghost ball hit:

Pro-Billiards-Aim-1.jpg


Pro-Billiards-Aim-2.jpg


Pro-Billiards-Aim-3.jpg
 
remember you are talking to guys that have been plateaued for many a year! and they think only god given talent is the only way they could get better. So they wont accept any other reasoning.
 
champ2107 said:
remember you are talking to guys that have been plateaued for many a year! and they think only god given talent is the only way they could get better. So they wont accept any other reasoning.
Click to expand...

It's like learning a multiplication table. Let's say you have 10,000 multiplication problems. 5*10, 43*45, 1029*423, etc. You can approach this a couple of ways: memorize each and every problem with flash cards, or learn a bit of simple math to derive the answer to any one of them. For those that have not memorized them, the math is the quickest way to find the answers. For the guys that have already memorized them all, why would they now want to learn the math? It's just confusing and unnecessary.

So applying this to the aiming, why would guys that have "memorized" every shot on the table now want to go learn a system to do the same thing?

I showed CTE to a local top player. His first reaction was "why?" As in, just look at the shot and shoot it dummy! :D
 
Maybe if he had a system, he wouldn't be just a local top player and he would be a national top player? Let us look at the top three finishers at the sbe, Shane, Stevie and daz. All three apparently use systems and have hit a few million balls, so if they have god given talent or whatever, why use a system? I think there is a reason they use them and that there world class. If I do not understand why something works, I am also smart enough to not write it off as bs!
 
Matt...In your article you state catagorically that contact point aiming will result in a miss. That's not true...see Joe Tucker's site for some edification (he teaches contact point aiming, and even has a ball set to go with it). The real truth is that with an accurate and repeatable stroke, ANY aiming method will give pretty consistent results. With a poor stroke, NO aiming method will work very well.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

BilliardsAbout said:
Just happened to find this thread. Sorry for the delay in replying.

Thanks, Sean and all for your thorough review and response.

A few things to bear in mind, even though I hesitate to discuss aiming systems at times for reasons we all know (!):

1. Most amateur pool players overcut their shots. Taking cue ball center toward contact point helps them to hit the ball more thick. Combining a thick hit with a soft enough stroke does wonders for pocketing many different types of challenging cut shots.

2. I've said on About.com and in InsidePool that many pros will say a) they learned ghost ball at an early age b) they abandoned ghost ball aim long ago for just pointing the cue stick through the cue ball at the contact point (for those shots not far past 3/4 of the object ball thin, of course).

I've also written how there are many fine players will swear they are pointing at the contact point even as their cue tip is aimed far closer to the ghost ball center than the contact point.

Why do they do this? Because their eyes (and probably most of us reading this thread do this most of the time at the tables) are focused on the contact point to see a real object in 3D space while their cue is pointed more toward the geometric aiming point to subconciously adjust!

Try it for yourself and see. Shoot some shots with the cue ball center toward the contact point. You'll sink a few and then very carefully assume your stance without looking at the cue ball but with your tip pointed to the contact point. Many skilled players will look down to see their tip pointed at the ghost ball center instead...

3. I will say that contact point aim is a great reference point to start; is used by many pros as I've said, and that there are far more throw issues and eyesight issues with the ghost ball method.

4. Even with throw all but eliminated using fractional amounts of outside english, ghost ball aiming is very dangerous stuff.

5. I would probably say "edge to edge aim" rather than "eclipsing" as you described, since a true eclipse means you are way down low with your eyes very near the table. You cannot see the hit at impact on the far side of the cue ball from your eyes as we all know, but edge-to-edge is a great term to use to help people struggling with very thin hits.

It's easier to tell a novice, "Shoot those thin cuts sending the right edge of the cue ball at the contact point" rather than to see a very thin eclipse. Note also that edge-to-edge implies a visualization that does not need to be "made" from behind the cue ball in front of the cue tip - an "eclipse" does. Not trying to be a semantics guy here.

6. Enough of that for now--what do y'all think?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top