Subjective Aiming v Objective Aiming

D

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Here are a few clips of some shots.......all ghost ball.

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=ducman 954

If I was tell you all you had to do is find the spot on the table that is a1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB and that is on the line to the center pocket and then roll the bottom of the CB over that spot, it would hard at first to find that spot because determining that spot would be subjective. Through experince ie. trail and error, the level of being subjective decreases but never totally goes away.

Now, training with Babe 's arrow , you now have a objective spot to see, to touch on the table. The arrow points to that spot on the table that is a 1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB.

Take the arrow away, your back to subjective aiming, but from using the arrow, the trail and error can be reduced becausevo the arrow giving you a objective spot on the table and not something subjective.

This is why I say all aiming systems are subjective. Implying that a system can give objective spots to aim with is very misleading.
 
Duckie - you can't be serious? You would have to work hard to miss those shots.

Also - you shouldn't be a plopper with your bridge, GB or not. Slide into the shot wherever possible.

Cheers,
Gerry

duckie said:
Here are a few clips of some shots.......all ghost ball.

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=ducman 954

If I was tell you all you had to do is find the spot on the table that is a1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB and that is on the line to the center pocket and then roll the bottom of the CB over that spot, it would hard at first to find that spot because determining that spot would be subjective. Through experince ie. trail and error, the level of being subjective decreases but never totally goes away.

Now, training with Babe 's arrow , you now have a objective spot to see, to touch on the table. The arrow points to that spot on the table that is a 1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB.

Take the arrow away, your back to subjective aiming, but from using the arrow, the trail and error can be reduced becausevo the arrow giving you a objective spot on the table and not something subjective.

This is why I say all aiming systems are subjective. Implying that a system can give objective spots to aim with is very misleading.
Click to expand...
 
duckie said:
here are a few clips of some shots.......all ghost ball.

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=ducman 954

if i was tell you all you had to do is find the spot on the table that is a1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the ob and that is on the line to the center pocket and then roll the bottom of the cb over that spot, it would hard at first to find that spot because determining that spot would be subjective. Through experince ie. Trail and error, the level of being subjective decreases but never totally goes away.

Now, training with babe 's arrow , you now have a objective spot to see, to touch on the table. The arrow points to that spot on the table that is a 1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the ob.

Take the arrow away, your back to subjective aiming, but from using the arrow, the trail and error can be reduced becausevo the arrow giving you a objective spot on the table and not something subjective.

This is why i say all aiming systems are subjective. Implying that a system can give objective spots to aim with is very misleading.
Click to expand...

the game is the teacher.
 
duckie said:
Here are a few clips of some shots.......all ghost ball.

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=ducman 954

If I was tell you all you had to do is find the spot on the table that is a1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB and that is on the line to the center pocket and then roll the bottom of the CB over that spot, it would hard at first to find that spot because determining that spot would be subjective. Through experince ie. trail and error, the level of being subjective decreases but never totally goes away.

Now, training with Babe 's arrow , you now have a objective spot to see, to touch on the table. The arrow points to that spot on the table that is a 1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB.

Take the arrow away, your back to subjective aiming, but from using the arrow, the trail and error can be reduced becausevo the arrow giving you a objective spot on the table and not something subjective.

This is why I say all aiming systems are subjective. Implying that a system can give objective spots to aim with is very misleading.
Click to expand...

I would say that it is more perceptive than subjective. Using the Arrow as a tool while compensating for CIT to perceive the overlap/eclipse of the CB covering the OB as well as a point on the cloth (with the Arrow) fortify where to send the CB to contact the OB to achieve the desired result.

Add too that DD aiming when the separation between the CB and OB is 2 diamonds or more.

It's all good for those that can remember these relationships/perceptions.:thumbup:
 
duckie said:
Here are a few clips of some shots.......all ghost ball.

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=ducman 954

If I was tell you all you had to do is find the spot on the table that is a1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB and that is on the line to the center pocket and then roll the bottom of the CB over that spot, it would hard at first to find that spot because determining that spot would be subjective. Through experince ie. trail and error, the level of being subjective decreases but never totally goes away.

Now, training with Babe 's arrow , you now have a objective spot to see, to touch on the table. The arrow points to that spot on the table that is a 1/2 ball from the outer most edge of the OB.

Take the arrow away, your back to subjective aiming, but from using the arrow, the trail and error can be reduced becausevo the arrow giving you a objective spot on the table and not something subjective.

This is why I say all aiming systems are subjective. Implying that a system can give objective spots to aim with is very misleading.
Click to expand...

Can you use the arrow in a game?

No.

Can you use CTE or any other objective aiming method?

Yes.

Do you need any device to learn CTE?

No.

Tell you what Duckie I will come to your pool room and play you 14.1. You can use the arrow on every shot.

I bet you don't win.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Head in the clouds, feet in cement.

I was hoping to see improvement from someone who practiced over 3000 hours in one year.



sfleinen said:
Just the fact that he's still posting these as "model" shots -- which in itself is a big "tell" as far as where his head is at in relation to his progress.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Another example of objective v subjective. When I was teaching my daughter to shoot a pistol, we used the same pistol. It has open sights.

At first, she was all over the place on the target. Of course she blamed the gun.
I took the pistol and put 5 in the bullseye with it. Same gun, same ammo, same distance.

Once a really explained how the line up....aim.....the rear/ front sights and target.....and she learned to squeeze the trigger.....she started hitting the bull.

Because there are real world objects to use for aiming, I could explain clearly how to use the rear, front sight and target.

Show some one the points to line up in aiming, including ghost ball, in any system. There are none. It s all visualization, imaginary, hell hallucination even at times.

Example.....half ball hit......in the real world this does not exist. There is no way to hit half of a ball. It is a illusion in your minds eye therefore purely subjective.

Any lines, points, overlaps, back of the ball and so forth you see in aiming are not real....even in ghost ball. They only exist in your minds eye unlike the sights on the pistol and the bulls eye.

Because I walk a different path then the herd here, I have a different look at aiming systems as in they do not exist but rather just different aiming visualization methods. The pistol has a aiming system, a heat seeking missile has a aiming system, pool shot does not.

But sure sounds easier to aim using the aiming system v aiming visualization methods.....that just sound like hard work is need from the person where as system just makes aiming sound easier than it really is.
 
duckie said:
Another example of objective v subjective. When I was teaching my daughter to shoot a pistol, we used the same pistol. It has open sights.

At first, she was all over the place on the target. Of course she blamed the gun.
I took the pistol and put 5 in the bullseye with it. Same gun, same ammo, same distance.

Once a really explained how the line up....aim.....the rear/ front sights and target.....and she learned to squeeze the trigger.....she started hitting the bull.

Because there are real world objects to use for aiming, I could explain clearly how to use the rear, front sight and target.

Show some one the points to line up in aiming, including ghost ball, in any system. There are none. It s all visualization, imaginary, hell hallucination even at times.

Example.....half ball hit......in the real world this does not exist. There is no way to hit half of a ball. It is a illusion in your minds eye therefore purely subjective.

Any lines, points, overlaps, back of the ball and so forth you see in aiming are not real....even in ghost ball. They only exist in your minds eye unlike the sights on the pistol and the bulls eye.

Because I walk a different path then the herd here, I have a different look at aiming systems as in they do not exist but rather just different aiming visualization methods. The pistol has a aiming system, a heat seeking missile has a aiming system, pool shot does not.

But sure sounds easier to aim using the aiming system v aiming visualization methods.....that just sound like hard work is need from the person where as system just makes aiming sound easier than it really is.
Click to expand...

Not true. The edge of the object ball is clear. The center of the ball is clear. Those two positions are easy to line up to. It's easy to line up both edges of both balls for a straight in shot, it's easy to line up the center to the edge for a half ball hit.

The fullness of the hit is MEASURED by the amount that the cue ball eclipses the object ball as seen from the shot line. It is a measurable and repeatable task based on objective sighting of easily seen parts of the cue ball and object ball.

Anyway, you are entitled to think what you want. I am done with you. This is your way to tilt at windmills then have at it. Everyone gets their say and I just want everyone to know that while it's entirely possible that someone at your level could have some original thought about pool it's highly improbable.

You are, in my opinion, worse than 90% of the readers here and have no business telling anyone what they should and should not be doing in pool. People at your level should ask questions and practice rather than make assertions.

But, on the internet no one knows you are a dog so have at it.
 
duckie said:
Another example of objective v subjective. When I was teaching my daughter to shoot a pistol, we used the same pistol. It has open sights.

At first, she was all over the place on the target. Of course she blamed the gun.
I took the pistol and put 5 in the bullseye with it. Same gun, same ammo, same distance.

Once a really explained how the line up....aim.....the rear/ front sights and target.....and she learned to squeeze the trigger.....she started hitting the bull.

Because there are real world objects to use for aiming, I could explain clearly how to use the rear, front sight and target.

Show some one the points to line up in aiming, including ghost ball, in any system. There are none. It s all visualization, imaginary, hell hallucination even at times.

Example.....half ball hit......in the real world this does not exist. There is no way to hit half of a ball. It is a illusion in your minds eye therefore purely subjective.

Any lines, points, overlaps, back of the ball and so forth you see in aiming are not real....even in ghost ball. They only exist in your minds eye unlike the sights on the pistol and the bulls eye.

Because I walk a different path then the herd here, I have a different look at aiming systems as in they do not exist but rather just different aiming visualization methods. The pistol has a aiming system, a heat seeking missile has a aiming system, pool shot does not.

But sure sounds easier to aim using the aiming system v aiming visualization methods.....that just sound like hard work is need from the person where as system just makes aiming sound easier than it really is.
Click to expand...

So, the edge of the real ball is just an illusion, and a GHOST ball is objective and real. O-Kaaaaaaaaaaaay.................... Let me guess here.... you always lose to the ghost playing 9 ball because he is a master at ghost ball aiming, and you are only his apprentice, right???
 
In order not to to side track the other thread....

Below is a pic of a shooter's view of a shot and a pic of a shooters view shooting open sights of a rifle.

In the pool pic, please point to what would be equivalent to the rear sight and front sight of a rifle. This is the difference between subjective aiming and objective aiming.

There is no aiming method that provides objective/references points for aiming. Even training with the arrow, there is still one subjective point.

All aiming methods rely on visualization and trail and error. That is the plain, simple truth that gets overlooked.

Here's proof........thinking, or seeing that you hit 1/2 a ball when this is impossible.

Also......do you have a built in degree meter to indicate when a shot is 30 or 15 degrees or are you really just guessing that is the angle, when in reality it just might be 27 degrees.

Anyway have fun pointing out those objective aiming points.....
 
Last edited:
duckie said:
In order not to to side track the other thread....

Below is a pic of a shooter's view of a shot and a pic of a shooters view shooting open sights of a rifle.

In the pool pic, please point to what would be equivalent to the rear sight and front sight of a rifle. This is the difference between subjective aiming and objective aiming.

There is no aiming method that provides objective/references points for aiming. Even training with the arrow, there is still one subjective point.

All aiming methods rely on visualization and trail and error. That is the plain, simple truth that gets overlooked.

Here's proof........thinking, or seeing that you hit 1/2 a ball when this is impossible.

Also......do you have a built in degree meter to indicate when a shot is 30 or 15 degrees or are you really just guessing that is the angle, when in reality it just might be 27 degrees.

Anyway have fun pointing out those objective aiming points.....
Click to expand...

Ya know, before you go knocking something, it might be wise to have a clue of what you are even talking about. Your post, especially the last part, shows that you have no clue what you are talking about with reference to CTE visuals.
 
Neil said:
Ya know, before you go knocking something, it might be wise to have a clue of what you are even talking about. Your post, especially the last part, shows that you have no clue what you are talking about with reference to CTE visuals.
Click to expand...

Why are you limiting it to CTE visuals?
 
I usually don't get involved in these types of threads, but feel the need to point something out, maybe it will make a difference, maybe not...

First, interesting info about the gun sights. I will be taking a concealed weapon's class soon with my wife, neither of us have ever shot a gun. I'm thinking will be good to learn, and even cool to learn how to aim properly - like how you've pictured - and practice good technique to enjoy going to the range to practice.


In your example - using SEE as I do, or 90/90 I believe is similar - I would be aiming the outside (left) edge of the CB at the inside (right) edge of the object ball. Those are two pretty objective points, especially at that distance, vs. trying to aim at a point that is 1 1/4" away from the object ball and at a slight angle toward the shooter. Then I simply step into the shot a certain way and go to center CB, a repetitive movement learned from practice.

I don't even look up at the OB for any real reason after my initial alignment - no reason to, I don't feel I can accurately judge the hit at that distance anyway. A matter of fact, usually when I "fidget" on those types of long tough shots and try to make small corrections I do more harm than good. My initial alignment is almost always perfect based on my alignment of the CB to OB and the movement to CB. The main issue here is not only aiming properly but then stroking straight as well. I can make even tougher shots with the OB in the middle of the end rail - same alignment, same movements.

There is a shot in the Billiard University test, drill #1, a progressive cut with the OB in your position, 1 ball off the rail, 1 diamond from the pocket. CB at the hardest level is 1 diamond from the opposite end rail and 1 diamond from the right long rail - so off the rail a little more than yours, but technically even a more acute angle. I made 10 out of 10 for the drill several times out of 5 or 6 attempts, and would expect to make 8 or 9 out of 10 frequently.

Now this is a very tough shot, small margin for error in aiming, stroke deviation, etc. Could Thorsten or Archer or whoever make just as many or more with whatever method they use? Sure, for many reasons. But for me, with my poor eyesight at that distance due to astigmatism, I am WAY better and more confident at those shots since using SEE or Pro1 than before just guessing. There is zero anxiety when shooting that shot, since I'm just aligning 2 objective points and getting down on the ball the same way I would for a 12" straight in shot. Those repetitive movements, standard PSR, etc. make shooting difficult shots no more difficult than any other, you are shooting the same 2 or 3 shots over and over. When I practice shots in certain categories, or do demonstrations or clinic, I specifically do NOT use donuts or mark the table. I shoot difficult shots from random locations - same family of angles, but a little more left, more right, more or less distance, etc. Just to show that the alignment and movement works regardless of the exact position.


Regarding the objective vs. subjective - If you were asking me to aim at 9/16" of a ball, then yes, that's really no different then estimating a GB center. But when aiming using edges, or the center (which is sort of subjective but very easy to estimate), or the shadow under the ball (which is in a VERY consistent location shot to shot), we can feel like we are using objective points to aim with, and that every shot is the same. It promotes a similar feeling and process from shot to shot, which has a direct affect on one's confidence.

I'll leave it to debate as the wars wage on whether these are "systems", "methods", "tricks", etc. I may be a little more open minded than most, I don't even know how they work and I use them, and I've had questions that have not been sufficiently answered as well and/or met with resistance. But unlike other keyboard warriors, I took it to the table, studied the material, asked questions, and gave it a chance. If you do all that, and you still don't get it, then great, they may not be for you. My pool partner, a top player in the area, is very visual, and thinks what I do is crazy - lines, shadows, etc. Yet recently he asked me to show him, since he's seen that much of an improvement in my pocketing confidence and doesn't want to miss out. I confused the hell out of him, it wasn't for him, but he can't deny what he's seen in my personal game.

Do I think everyone should learn an aiming system, or can't play without one? No. I don't even teach them in my lessons unless someone asks or I see someone grossly missing shots - usually there are far worse issues to resolve first. I just know for me, and others, they work and can be a great addition to one's game.


Interestingly, after conversations with a few pro friends of mine, I've actually reached a point where I don't consciously use a system on my more routine shots. I find that after a year or two of using the systems routinely, my sense of alignment and visualization - what "looks" right - has been enhanced so much that I can tell, system or not, that I'm lined up right. I don't consciously use or not use the system, although on tougher shots I 100% use it. But on easier to medium shots, I don't think about it and let it happen. I may be in the minority, but I've seen no decline in my ball pocketing, perhaps just a sloppy shot here and there. I did this after being told not to lose my "feel" and connection to the pocket by being too robotic with everything. I know that goes counter to most aiming system people, and my friends recommending this were not aiming system users, but I respected their opinion and think there's something to it. I think after a while, less and less conscious thought is needed to get down and come into the shot in a consistent and correct manner. I can still "see" the lines, angles, etc., I just don't need to stand behind the ball for 5 seconds to always consciously visualize them, if that makes sense. However, I always have something more specific to fall back on in pressure situations and on tougher cuts and longer shots.


Anyway, that's my rambling thoughts for the day. Maybe it will help you or someone else, maybe it won't. Maybe no one will read it... :)
Scott
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top