Learn with an aiming system or not

Oze147 said:
Sooo,,,,sorry, took me a while to answer but:



Yeah, thats why I said "lost in translation". Kind of implies that there might have been some misunderstanding on my side.



Well...lets say they cover aiming. A lot of emphasis is what they put in working on your stroke, stance, position play etc.



Yes, there are different aiming techniques used in snooker and nobody said otherwise, I just said, that there are not much of controversies about aiming, let alone highly emotional crusades. They just see what works for them and use it...they just don`t make such a fuss about it.
Beside I don`t know why you included the aspect of coaches monetizing their knowledge. Professional coaching is their job, so earning money is the whole point of it. (ok, not the whole point, but at the end they want to to make a living out of it).
Click to expand...
I fully agree that snooker coaches put a lot of emphasis on fundamentals. So do pool instructors. Those opposed to aiming system always try to paint it as if anyone teaching an aiming system does not also focus on fundamentals. And as if those learning aiming systems don't pay attention to their fundamentals. That's simply not true and the two aspects are not exclusive.

I trained Kelly Fisher for a while on strategy. She was very clear that I should not touch her fundamentals and it's obvious why. She could execute any shot shown to her within a few attempts.

Which again brings up the question of why do people miss when their stroke is perfect? If a perfect stroke equals perfect aim then there should never be a miss caused by anything the player has done. The stroke merely sends the object ball down the line it was aimed on.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 
Oze147 said:
Sooo,,,,sorry, took me a while to answer but:



Yeah, thats why I said "lost in translation". Kind of implies that there might have been some misunderstanding on my side.



Well...lets say they cover aiming. A lot of emphasis is what they put in working on your stroke, stance, position play etc.



Yes, there are different aiming techniques used in snooker and nobody said otherwise, I just said, that there are not much of controversies about aiming, let alone highly emotional crusades. They just see what works for them and use it...they just don`t make such a fuss about it.
Beside I don`t know why you included the aspect of coaches monetizing their knowledge. Professional coaching is their job, so earning money is the whole point of it. (ok, not the whole point, but at the end they want to to make a living out of it).
Click to expand...
I have nothing against coaches making money. People in America do if that coach has any "product" that they are selling.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 
Hi John, that gentleman who designed the Marine Corps Case, that you made, lives in my part of the world. He is as proud as Punch about that case.... Me too, I'm also a Marine...
 
JB Cases said:
Which again brings up the question of why do people miss when their stroke is perfect? If a perfect stroke equals perfect aim then there should never be a miss caused by anything the player has done. The stroke merely sends the object ball down the line it was aimed on.
Click to expand...

For the same reason people miss when they have the perfect "aim." Truth is, there is no "perfect" stroke, and we don't aim "perfectly" every time. Otherwise, we'd be all robots, with no feelings or emotions.

We strive for perfection in both, but in my view, it's easier to just let some of that go and accept some margin for error. If the game was to hit each ball perfectly, the pockets would be designed at 2-3/8". When you "think" the pockets are bigger than they are, it frees you up to just pocket balls, and play position. In the end, that's what the game is, not aiming perfectly or stroking perfectly.
 
louieatienza said:
For the same reason people miss when they have the perfect "aim." Truth is, there is no "perfect" stroke, and we don't aim "perfectly" every time. Otherwise, we'd be all robots, with no feelings or emotions.

We strive for perfection in both, but in my view, it's easier to just let some of that go and accept some margin for error. If the game was to hit each ball perfectly, the pockets would be designed at 2-3/8". When you "think" the pockets are bigger than they are, it frees you up to just pocket balls, and play position. In the end, that's what the game is, not aiming perfectly or stroking perfectly.
Click to expand...

Fully agree. Which is why the two aspects are not exclusive - aiming, alignment, stance, stroke, head position, eye patterns, knowing the condition of the equipment, knowing what's possible and probable, etc, etc, etc.....are all variables that must be accounted for and mastered to the highest degree possible in order to have any chance at a high level of performance. To act as though any of them can be dismissed as a given IF more attention is paid to another is simply bad advice and clearly not true.
 
ceebee said:
Hi John, that gentleman who designed the Marine Corps Case, that you made, lives in my part of the world. He is as proud as Punch about that case.... Me too, I'm also a Marine...
Click to expand...

Thanks! He and you are good people and a pleasure to be around.
 
Oze147 said:
Sooo,,,,sorry, took me a while to answer but:



Yeah, thats why I said "lost in translation". Kind of implies that there might have been some misunderstanding on my side.



Well...lets say they cover aiming. A lot of emphasis is what they put in working on your stroke, stance, position play etc.



Yes, there are different aiming techniques used in snooker and nobody said otherwise, I just said, that there are not much of controversies about aiming, let alone highly emotional crusades. They just see what works for them and use it...they just don`t make such a fuss about it.
Beside I don`t know why you included the aspect of coaches monetizing their knowledge. Professional coaching is their job, so earning money is the whole point of it. (ok, not the whole point, but at the end they want to to make a living out of it).
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any controversy anyway. If someone comes out with an "aiming system" then let people try it and discuss it in peace without attempting to make them feel stupid or self-delusional for doing so.

All of this is in service to discovering how to perform at ever higher levels. Everyone knows that there is no magic product or method that turns a hack into a champion. There are however magic pills that turn a B player into a A player for as long as the pill lasts but that's another discussion......

But no system, no method, no technique, will work very well without the table time to make it a solid part of the game. It's like if you give me a book on how to repair an engine I can follow the directions but until I have repaired a lot of engines I won't be able to say I am a good mechanic just because I have a book. However I can use that book until I am sure I have mastered everything in it and have that knowledge as a solid foundation to build my experience on.

I just bought a 4ft toy table. The same aiming principles I advocate for work on it. That's been the whole point all along. Do the methods work and if so great use them all you want to and go forth and prosper.... If they don't work or don't work for you then drop them in the bin and move on....

But to tell people that they are stupid for even considering to try them and to tell people that they don't work even though many clearly testify that they do is unnecessarily controversial.
 
Objective reference points of aim......
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    65.7 KB · Views: 200
louieatienza said:
For the same reason people miss when they have the perfect "aim." Truth is, there is no "perfect" stroke, and we don't aim "perfectly" every time. Otherwise, we'd be all robots, with no feelings or emotions.

We strive for perfection in both, but in my view, it's easier to just let some of that go and accept some margin for error. If the game was to hit each ball perfectly, the pockets would be designed at 2-3/8". When you "think" the pockets are bigger than they are, it frees you up to just pocket balls, and play position. In the end, that's what the game is, not aiming perfectly or stroking perfectly.
Click to expand...

What he said - or - if you missed, your stroke wasn't perfect.

Semantics infraction. Ball out on the side

Dale(logic referee)
 
duckie said:
Objective reference points of aim......
Click to expand...

Let's have a shotmaking contest Duckie.

Pretty sure that with my objective aiming I will destroy you. Hopefully so badly that you will just quit.

You pick 50 shots and I will pick 50 shots. Whoever makes all 50 in the least amount of tries wins.

You must start the video and let it go through in one take. Keep shooting the shot until you get it and mark the amount of tries and add to the running total.

You have a week after we publish the list of shots to publish your video. We will both post out videos at the same time. The winner gets to stay on AZB and $5000. Or $500, or $50 or $5 I don't care about the money part of it.

Of all the people here who talk about how to play pool you are truly one of them who is least qualified. If San Jose Dick can rag on me for not being at his level and likely not ever having any shot at reaching his level.....well you don't seem to have improved at all in your years here. I don't know if you have ever run six balls in a row but I really doubt you have run a rack of nine ball or 14 in straight pool.

You truly have nothing of value to add to any pool discussion in my opinion which is totally based on your comments over the years. You couldn't win a shotmaking contest against Helen Keller.

But in case you feel that all your years of training with "the arrow" has helped you to becoming a competent shotmaker go ahead and make a list of 50 shots and I will do the same and we will see how good you are.

And yes I know you will put up some combinations, kick shots and some caroms....that's ok.....I am sure I can do most of those better than you as well. Give you a hint, CTE is great for objectively lining up combinations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top