What I Stole From Fractional Aiming Systems

Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fargo 1000 on VP4
Silver Member
I probably have the most stripped down aiming method there is - I just try to "feel" where the CB contact point is and aim it at the OB contact point (which I've trained myself to "see"). I like the simplicity and directness of this, but I've often thought that I could benefit from a little more structure and consistency in my (non-existent) pre-shot routine.

Lately I've been trying to adapt an idea that I like from the fractional aiming systems - using visible CB/OB landmarks as guides for a consistent pre-shot "starting alignment". Since I'm lucky enough to be able to "see" the OB contact point accurately (after years of practicing it), I'm using it as my "visible" OB landmark from which I estimate the ghostball center and line up on the CBcenter-to-GBcenter line.

I still "aim" one contact point at the other, but adding this pre-shot alignment routine (a hallmark of fractional systems) has helped me to get down consistently and quickly and has the added benefit of being a visual "cross-check" for aiming the CB contact point at the OB contact point. It has noticably improved my consistency, accuracy and (oddly enough), focus.

This is really simple, but here's a drawing for clarity anyway:

CP-GB Aiming.jpg

pj
chgo
 
Brilliant.

So you use a line to line/spot to spot aiming system based on a fractional ball aiming system that isn't actually the "fractional ball aiming system".

Kudos to you sir.
 
sfmc-x1 said:
Brilliant.

So you use a line to line/spot to spot aiming system based on a fractional ball aiming system that isn't actually the "fractional ball aiming system".

Kudos to you sir.
Click to expand...
I don't use an aiming system - I just aim one contact point at the other, as I said. Only the idea of a pre-shot alignment using landmarks is "based on" fractional systems.

Using the contact points as I do is pretty much the opposite of how fractional systems work.

pj
chgo
 
Pat, I agree with everything you have in this thread except for one statement.

I believe the process of aiming one contact point to another meets the requirements of a system.

I would like to hear why you think this cannot be considered a system. I think it is because it is an organized method.

BTW I aim this way too.

Patrick Johnson said:
I don't use an aiming system - I just aim one contact point at the other, as I said. Only the idea of a pre-shot alignment using landmarks is "based on" fractional systems.

Using the contact points as I do is pretty much the opposite of how fractional systems work.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Pat, I agree with everything you have in this thread except for one statement.

I believe the process of aiming one contact point to another meets the requirements of a system.

I would like to hear why you think this cannot be considered a system. I think it is because it is an organized method.

BTW I aim this way too.
Click to expand...
Is aligning the sights on a rifle at the target an aiming system? If it is, then I think "system" means too many things to be meaningful.

pj
chgo
 
If done in a coordinated way with a series of checks then, yes.

You have a series of steps and checks that you have used to aim, just like I do.


What happens to your aiming when you don't follow your steps and checks?

I see no problem with calling these methods a system.

Patrick Johnson said:
Is aligning the sights on a rifle at the target an aiming system? If it is, then I think "system" means too many things to be meaningful.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Is aligning the sights on a rifle at the target an aiming system? If it is, then I think "system" means too many things to be meaningful.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

That's Pat -- always bucking the "system" and any application of that word! :D

J/K. Good description of your aiming procedure though -- I like it!

-Sean
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I probably have the most stripped down aiming method there is - I just try to "feel" where the CB contact point is and aim it at the OB contact point (which I've trained myself to "see"). I like the simplicity and directness of this, but I've often thought that I could benefit from a little more structure and consistency in my (non-existent) pre-shot routine.

Lately I've been trying to adapt an idea that I like from the fractional aiming systems - using visible CB/OB landmarks as guides for a consistent pre-shot "starting alignment". Since I'm lucky enough to be able to "see" the OB contact point accurately (after years of practicing it), I'm using it as my "visible" OB landmark from which I estimate the ghostball center and line up on the CBcenter-to-GBcenter line.

I still "aim" one contact point at the other, but adding this pre-shot alignment routine (a hallmark of fractional systems) has helped me to get down consistently and quickly and has the added benefit of being a visual "cross-check" for aiming the CB contact point at the OB contact point. It has noticably improved my consistency, accuracy and (oddly enough), focus.

This is really simple, but here's a drawing for clarity anyway:

View attachment 238255

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

How do you do those graphics?
 
I would use double distance (another PJ thread) aiming for the initial alignment...in most cases.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
You have a series of steps and checks that you have used to aim, just like I do.

...

I see no problem with calling these methods a system.
Click to expand...
Then, since we all aim by repeating steps, all aiming is done with "aiming systems"?

If that's true, how do we differentiate between simply trying to directly "replace the ghostball" and complicated, indirect systems like fractional and pivot?

Maybe we don't need to...

pj
chgo
 
I think the success for this method would determine on one's ability to accurately figure that 1.125" line coming out of the back of the OB. As the distance increases, that line will "appear" smaller -- and pair that with the aspect change of that line's appearance as the angle changes (might appear shorter/longer).

I think if you combine the two, it's a whole lot of guessing. Not saying one can't play well w/ that --- it's just a lot of figuring/guessing.

For that, you might as well shoot at the ghost ball itself, imo.

Seeing balls as two dimensional objects is the key to playing well, in my opinion, regardless of how you choose to pocket them.
 
Sure, I believe that everyone has their own "aiming system"

It is theirs and unique to the player. After all, do you see, or perceive the shots like I do, or vice-versa? Do you have access to the shot pictures that I have in my head that I use at a subconscious level to match up what I see with my eyes?

Why can't you differentiate between each system by comparing the methods used between each?




Patrick Johnson said:
Then, since we all aim by repeating steps, all aiming is done with "aiming systems"?

If that's true, how do we differentiate between simply trying to directly "replace the ghostball" and complicated, indirect systems like fractional and pivot?

Maybe we don't need to...

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I think the success for this method would determine on one's ability to accurately figure that 1.125" line coming out of the back of the OB. As the distance increases, that line will "appear" smaller -- and pair that with the aspect change of that line's appearance as the angle changes (might appear shorter/longer).

I think if you combine the two, it's a whole lot of guessing. Not saying one can't play well w/ that --- it's just a lot of figuring/guessing.

For that, you might as well shoot at the ghost ball itself, imo.

Seeing balls as two dimensional objects is the key to playing well, in my opinion, regardless of how you choose to pocket them.
Click to expand...

I agree with this (bolded part). I actually "flatten" the balls to discs, and use the eclipsing method I outlined in another thread. Sure, it requires some homework on the part of the student, in that some reference ball-to-ball relationships need to be memorized (i.e. 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 7/8, and thin cuts), but once committed to memory, they serve as an automatic "back drop" that your subconscious automatically kicks-in to make fine adjustments to.

However, having good 3D spacial perception DOES help with this technique, in that if you "inflate" the discs back to their full shape, you can visualize the ghostball-to-object ball contact points as a method of checks and balances. If I get down on a shot and "it doesn't look right" for whatever reason, I'll do just that -- inflate the discs, and check using ghostball. Or, by fully getting up out of my stance, go back behind the line of the object ball to the pocket, and visualize the contact points. (Obviously, this requires a bit of discipline to do -- getting up out off the shot to re-check, and I'm guilty of not following my own advice.)

-Sean
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I ...you might as well shoot at the ghost ball itself, imo.
Click to expand...
As I said, I don't use the GB center to aim, just for initial setup and as a "second opinion" when aiming with contact points. However, the more I use the GB center the more accurately I see it.

Seeing balls as two dimensional objects is the key to playing well, in my opinion, regardless of how you choose to pocket them.
Click to expand...
I think seeing the balls as three dimensional is superior, but not everybody can do it. If you can see the balls three-dimensionally you can choose to see them two-dimensionally if you want to, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.

pj <- potayto potahto
chgo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top