This is weird,, try this out and report back...

I see using a touch of outside to be a natural feel in the game and the touch of inside an unnatural feel. Your way most likely heightens the awareness of each situation and you must pay attention to detail which will allow you to control/ manipulate the game from shot to shot. I believe when the game is played at the highest levels, it is played one situation at a time but still connected to many other situations. It is all good with me :)

Here is something I would like to throw your way. Have you ever looked at all shots on the table and tried to "create an illusion" of the cue ball always being at the same distance no matter where the actual cue ball position is? Imagining the distance between the cue ball and object ball to be like 30 inches apart for all shots. This is something to help with perception that I do.
 
Last edited:
This is something to just tinker around with and maybe it will help with perception or it may unlock something for you. If you wanted to make it into a system it would be a fractional system.

Thanks for the pics. I subconsciously use an equal & opposite overlap fractional 'system'. Your last two pics show the extremes from center to center & edge to edge. There are an 'infinite' number of fractional overlaps between the two. I don't consciously employ 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc.
There's that 5/16 overlap too. I never think of any of these numbers as I doubt that any one can accurately determine what exact fraction it is that it is required. It's just a visual perception of this amount of CB overlapping that amount of OB to get the OB to go to the pocket. Is it 5/16 or 3/8? I don't know & could not care less. It's just the fractional overlap amount required. Whatever it is. I guess I'm playing on auto pilot & my subconscious is the one flying the plane.

Sorry for the ramble.

Regards to You &
 
Matching up "quarters" from the cue ball to the object ball works in many ways, shapes and sizes. The question to ask your self is this: Is it creating a consistent connection that allows me to hit all parts of the pocket at will....if you can't do this, then you must use spin, and when you spin the ball you induce a "glancing blow" that doesn't give as strong a "feedback", thus reducing your touch and feel for the game.

Will Efren go down in history as having great eyesight (does anyone even know if he has 20/20?) or will he go down in history as having a great Touch, and Feel for the game of pool.....I can't speak for all champion players, but I have yet to hear any of them say they won a tournament because they were "aiming" or seeing particularly good that day....that week....or at all for that matter. ;) 'The Game is the Teacher, if We Listen'

Of course the connection has to be there. That's really what all the conversation about aiming is about, finding a way that connects the active parts, body and cue, to the inactive parts balls and pockets, that is reliable. As you get better you get more in touch with that and more consistent. As some reaches your level, world class, then they will have had to come up with something that they use constantly. No one gets to that level by using different methods each week.

I feel like aiming has long been something people just took for granted. Of course when you see efren play no one comments on his aiming because making balls automatically means he aimed correctly. Same with you, no one could watch you play and say you are using TOI on every shot. People discuss results not method.

But the level of interest in aiming indicates to me the deeper issue of people not being able to find that consistent connection by focusing on touch and feel and hitting a million balls. I think that once they do focus on aiming then they do discover the connection and that leads to a better touch and understanding of how to fine tune the shot when it called for.

I think any such ball-to-ball methods force the shooter to use the real objects they can see to make the connection.
 
I just align consistently and change the angle slightly with the TIP

Of course the connection has to be there. That's really what all the conversation about aiming is about, finding a way that connects the active parts, body and cue, to the inactive parts balls and pockets, that is reliable. As you get better you get more in touch with that and more consistent. As some reaches your level, world class, then they will have had to come up with something that they use constantly. No one gets to that level by using different methods each week.

I feel like aiming has long been something people just took for granted. Of course when you see efren play no one comments on his aiming because making balls automatically means he aimed correctly. Same with you, no one could watch you play and say you are using TOI on every shot. People discuss results not method.

But the level of interest in aiming indicates to me the deeper issue of people not being able to find that consistent connection by focusing on touch and feel and hitting a million balls. I think that once they do focus on aiming then they do discover the connection and that leads to a better touch and understanding of how to fine tune the shot when it called for.

I think any such ball-to-ball methods force the shooter to use the real objects they can see to make the connection.

Yes, I think all the top pros use a "ball to ball" system of one kind or another....I also believe it's done ABOVE the ball, before you get down. I connect the two balls the same way ever time, either like they're straight in or a half ball hit EVERY TIME.....then I use the TOI to establish the cut off this consistent "starting point".

The thing about my method is it is all done AT THE CUE BALL where I'm a consistent distance every time, with the same basic visual perception of the "target" (a point of the cue ball)..you can't do this if you're "aiming" at the object ball because, for one it's always a different distance. This make "aiming" very, very difficult indeed. ;)

I don't try to "aim", I just align consistently and change the angle slightly with the TIP....it's very simple, and very easy.
 
This thread is funny. My interpretation of the OP's post is to purposely line up at an angle that is not even close to making the ball. And then just trust your body to see if it will make an adjustment on its own, maybe even mid stroke, to make the ball. The half ball alignment is of no consequence, and was just an example. He could have said aim the CB 3 inches to the left of every OB instead.

Instead, half the posters make this a CTE or a TOI or an ETC thread, and take it all literally.

I'll throw in my own acronym, BTW, this is my opinion of shane's "Stick aiming system". He described some helping visual reference he came up with for some certain shots, in a couple of minutes on TAR video. And it spawned dozens and dozens of pages of "proof" that this is what Shane does, based on his brief explanation. The exact same concept is happening in this thread. Someone takes a "he said" and turns it into "gospel".

Yes, someone pissed in my cornflakes!
 
the reason I can "aim" at anything I want on the object ball?

This thread is funny. My interpretation of the OP's post is to purposely line up at an angle that is not even close to making the ball. And then just trust your body to see if it will make an adjustment on its own, maybe even mid stroke, to make the ball. The half ball alignment is of no consequence, and was just an example. He could have said aim the CB 3 inches to the left of every OB instead.

Instead, half the posters make this a CTE or a TOI or an ETC thread, and take it all literally.

I'll throw in my own acronym, BTW, this is my opinion of shane's "Stick aiming system". He described some helping visual reference he came up with for some certain shots, in a couple of minutes on TAR video. And it spawned dozens and dozens of pages of "proof" that this is what Shane does, based on his brief explanation. The exact same concept is happening in this thread. Someone takes a "he said" and turns it into "gospel".

Yes, someone pissed in my cornflakes!


cornflakes40011.jpg




You've got a point - when I'm down on the shot I can literally "aim" at anything I want. I can "aim" at the left side, right side, center, quarter 30*right/left or at a "light", shadow, etc.

What's the reason I can "aim" at anything I want on the object ball?

Because I'm already ALIGNED to the ball before I get down on the shot (then my target is the cue ball to create the angle). This is why/how players through history could literally TURN THEIR HEAD and run rack after rack.

If you make the one condition they couldn't ALIGN to the object ball BEFORE they got down (on the shot)....guess what? They would NEVER make even one ball..... unless they "lucked" in. :thumbup:
 
This thread is funny. My interpretation of the OP's post is to purposely line up at an angle that is not even close to making the ball. And then just trust your body to see if it will make an adjustment on its own, maybe even mid stroke, to make the ball. The half ball alignment is of no consequence, and was just an example. He could have said aim the CB 3 inches to the left of every OB instead.

Instead, half the posters make this a CTE or a TOI or an ETC thread, and take it all literally.

I'll throw in my own acronym, BTW, this is my opinion of shane's "Stick aiming system". He described some helping visual reference he came up with for some certain shots, in a couple of minutes on TAR video. And it spawned dozens and dozens of pages of "proof" that this is what Shane does, based on his brief explanation. The exact same concept is happening in this thread. Someone takes a "he said" and turns it into "gospel".

Yes, someone pissed in my cornflakes!

Actually Shane gave someone else about a 30 minute lesson on how he aims trying to explain the method he uses.

I think perhaps you are misunderstand the OPs point here. He is merely saying he was playing around with something that he found to work. And it's completely true that it works. Not perfectly for all shots but for a lot of them.

The fact is that there are many approaches to aiming that work. Some better than others and not all the same for all the people. One thing that CJ said on his TOI video about sums it up. He said he can show you what to do but he can't shoot the shots for you. That's about the bottom line for any and all methods of playing.

Jose Parica showed me some things and I couldn't do them the way he could. I said I can see you doing it and I can understand what you want me to do but I can't do it. Many years later I discovered the "touch" I needed to hit the shot the way he hits it. Now it's part of my game. And even so I am certain I don't do it as well or as consistently but then again I haven't put in the time Parica has.

All of this is in service to learning more about how to play at ever higher levels. I personally enjoy the challenge to always try and learn more and be able to do more, even with the limited amount of time I have to devote to the game.
 
This thread is funny. My interpretation of the OP's post is to purposely line up at an angle that is not even close to making the ball. And then just trust your body to see if it will make an adjustment on its own, maybe even mid stroke, to make the ball. The half ball alignment is of no consequence, and was just an example. He could have said aim the CB 3 inches to the left of every OB instead.

Instead, half the posters make this a CTE or a TOI or an ETC thread, and take it all literally.

I'll throw in my own acronym, BTW, this is my opinion of shane's "Stick aiming system". He described some helping visual reference he came up with for some certain shots, in a couple of minutes on TAR video. And it spawned dozens and dozens of pages of "proof" that this is what Shane does, based on his brief explanation. The exact same concept is happening in this thread. Someone takes a "he said" and turns it into "gospel".

Yes, someone pissed in my cornflakes!

:confused::confused::confused:
 
...snip....Actually Shane gave someone else about a 30 minute lesson on how he aims trying to explain the method he uses. ...snip...


hearsay :) :) and more he said she said leading to gospel :)

...snip....I think perhaps you are misunderstand the OPs point here. He is merely saying he was playing around with something that he found to work. And it's completely true that it works. Not perfectly for all shots but for a lot of them.... snip....

I can see how people will interpret things differently. Only way to be sure in this case is for the OP to come back and clarify.
 
hearsay :) :) and more he said she said leading to gospel :)

I can see how people will interpret things differently. Only way to be sure in this case is for the OP to come back and clarify.



This is the right idea, but remember, just bored and playing around with things, not extolling a new or revolutionary aiming system. Or any aiming system at all. Just being interested in how the human spirit can make a correction from a half ball starting point.

I liked that thread that tried to describe every aiming system on the planet, wish we could start that one up again !!

I understood the original post. You are saying SVB made up that stick aiming conversation on the spot on tar and it was all bs? On a half ball hit the cte and etc all line up and Jbcases was pointing out that when he first played around with cte he used the half ball visual as a starting point and adjusted thick or thin.
 
Last edited:
This thread is funny. My interpretation of the OP's post is to purposely line up at an angle that is not even close to making the ball. And then just trust your body to see if it will make an adjustment on its own, maybe even mid stroke, to make the ball. The half ball alignment is of no consequence, and was just an example. He could have said aim the CB 3 inches to the left of every OB instead.
Instead, half the posters make this a CTE or a TOI or an ETC thread, and take it all literally.

I'll throw in my own acronym, BTW, this is my opinion of shane's "Stick aiming system". He described some helping visual reference he came up with for some certain shots, in a couple of minutes on TAR video. And it spawned dozens and dozens of pages of "proof" that this is what Shane does, based on his brief explanation. The exact same concept is happening in this thread. Someone takes a "he said" and turns it into "gospel".

Yes, someone pissed in my cornflakes!

That's what I thought he was saying or trying to say.

I'm a firm believer once you know what the shot looks like it doesn't matter how you aim your mind will figure it out if you've hit enough balls and you've payed attention to all parties involved.


This brings me to something else.Raising up while pulling the trigger.
I know sometimes it's probably is the reason for the miss but I've heard it so many times.BS, YOU JUST MISSED.:smile:

Anthony
 
Back
Top