"Aiming Systems" are Junk, DO the Work!

[SpiderWebComm]

You are bull shitting here. He has his 100% of his own drills and does not use Bullseye. Bullseye has signed up with projectionprobilliards. com and was providing the drills they have on line for the micro computer and projector.

He is listed right on the Bullseye Billiards website as an instructor who uses their products.

https://bullseyebilliards.net/pages/instructors

He doesn't have to pull them out to give a lesson. He knows them by heart and can use them.

He has signed up with Dr. Dave's BU in order to receive people that want to take the testing drills.

And you think this is some kind of big deal? LMFAO

So, you can foghorn his critique without knowing anything as you usually do.

Oh, do you mean like YOU DO when not knowing a damn thing about how to use CTE and bad mouthing Stan all the time? You've gotta be kidding me!

I notice you have not taken the BU Dr. Dave's test listed on the sticky on the "main forum"?

And Dr. Dave knows exactly why because I've stated it to him.

Now that you're SOOooooo good from these lessons, I think it might be time to showcase your skills by doing a video of Colin's Potting Test.

Don't give me that crap about they are shots you would never take when playing either. They are ALL shots that could come up and do come up in play.

But to make it even sweeter since Dreyer has turned you into a playing champion with these position drills, place ANOTHER BALL any place on the table your little heart desires after making the OB for Colin's test and show us how you get position on the 2nd ball. That WILL be impressive and have players from all over the country seeking him out for lessons.

Now don't start the EXCUSE TRAIN like you always do that comes out rapid fire like a machine gun.

 

[BC21]

Good question. I'm unsure when the term came into vogue, but you can take almost any two popular pool books that are more than 30 years old, say offerings from Willie Mosconi and Cool Cat Martin, and one teaches parallel aim and one teaches ghost ball and contact point adjustments . . . "system" was the natural outcome there.

When I think of a system, I think of a specific set or group of moves/steps that if followed with precision bring about a predicted result. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, which I tend to do with many things.:embarrassed2:

If we ask a great basketball player how he/she makes free throws look easy, and the answer is "I look at the rim of the basket, then exactly where the ball needs to be in order to drop on through, and then I let it fly"....well that's not too helpful, and I surely wouldn't call it a system that'll help me learn how to do it. That's very similar to ghostball -- see where the ball needs to be and put it there. Other than maybe a standard pre-shot routine, this method does not involve any systematic steps or instruction to help us learn. That's why it takes a lot of trial and error before our brains are able to develop any consistency.

So I'm really just curious how or when common sense aiming methods based on a simple "shoot here" mentality got labeled as "aiming systems". These types of methods (traditional fractional ball aiming, ghostball, and contact point to contact point to be exact) are not systems, but they are part of a system. It's called rote, a system of repitition. Lol. Seems like an aiming "system" would involve specific steps to lead a player to a predicted or desire result (without having to hit thousands of shots before achieving results).

It really doesn't matter. I'm just curious. :grin-square:

 

[lfigueroa]

When I think of a system, I think of a specific set or group of moves/steps that if followed with precision bring about a predicted result. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, which I tend to do with many things.:embarrassed2:

If we ask a great basketball player how he/she makes free throws look easy, and the answer is "I look at the rim of the basket, then exactly where the ball needs to be in order to drop on through, and then I let it fly"....well that's not too helpful, and I surely wouldn't call it a system that'll help me learn how to do it. That's very similar to ghostball -- see where the ball needs to be and put it there. Other than maybe a standard pre-shot routine, this method does not involve any systematic steps or instruction to help us learn. That's why it takes a lot of trial and error before our brains are able to develop any consistency.

So I'm really just curious how or when common sense aiming methods based on a simple "shoot here" mentality got labeled as "aiming systems". These types of methods (traditional fractional ball aiming, ghostball, and contact point to contact point to be exact) are not systems, but they are part of a system. It's called rote, a system of repitition. Lol. Seems like an aiming "system" would involve specific steps to lead a player to a predicted or desire result (without having to hit thousands of shots before achieving results).

It really doesn't matter. I'm just curious. :grin-square:

I think that no matter what, you always have to hit the thousands of shots to gain the ability to accurately hit where the aiming "system" (or not) wants you to hit the ball. Think about how the average player looks standing at the table when they start out -- awkward, can barely make a bridge, maybe a swoop or two during delivery. After thousands of shots they'll look smoother but then it takes thousands more to gain a degree of accuracy and finesse. Thousands more to actually play the game at a decent level. Even thousands and thousands more to become proficient.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Dan White]

Looks like a couple of bans are in effect. I would hope that none of the regulars here chime in about how bad this guy or that guy was for the forum while they are not able to defend themselves.

 

[cookie man]

Looks like a couple of bans are in effect. I would hope that none of the regulars here chime in about how bad this guy or that guy was for the forum while they are not able to defend themselves.

Why can't you just post positive aiming forum stuff and stop acting like some kind of savior

 

[Dan White]

When I think of a system, I think of a specific set or group of moves/steps that if followed with precision bring about a predicted result. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, which I tend to do with many things.:embarrassed2:

It really doesn't matter. I'm just curious. :grin-square:

I looked up "system" in the dictionary and it connotes something that is more complex, in general. I think "method" might be a more appropriate word to describe how to hit a ball with a stick.

"Aiming method" doesn't sound as good as "aiming system" since "system" implies something more complex (and presumably more worth paying for). I don't think this is anything nefarious. It's just an easy word to use.

I'm sure back in the stone ages they were talking about a system designed to provide fuel for the continuation of thought, motion and productivity. We now call it a fork. :smile:

 

[stan shuffett]

Why can't you just post positive aiming forum stuff and stop acting like some kind of savior

Only someone that's frail and skinny would hit someone while they're down.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

Why can't you just post positive aiming forum stuff and stop acting like some kind of savior

Huh? As a guy on the receiving end of people (won't say who) who got all high and mighty and giddy about what a bad influence I was, I'm merely suggesting that not happen again to others regardless whether I agree with their tactics or not. Congrats on starting a new argument instead of taking my message at face value.

When is the last time you contributed something positive? When is the last time you started your own thread about something interesting or positive? Have you ever done that? It's a rhetorical question.

How about we not give the mods a reason to ban two more people?

 

[BC21]

I think that no matter what, you always have to hit the thousands of shots to gain the ability to accurately hit where the aiming "system" (or not) wants you to hit the ball. Think about how the average player looks standing at the table when they start out -- awkward, can barely make a bridge, maybe a swoop or two during delivery. After thousands of shots they'll look smoother but then it takes thousands more to gain a degree of accuracy and finesse. Thousands more to actually play the game at a decent level. Even thousands and thousands more to become proficient.

Lou Figueroa

As a buddy of mine says, "I'm pick'n up what you're lay'n down." I do believe it takes a lot of repetition before any decent skill level is reached. And at first, when using traditional aiming methods like estimating contact points or ghostball centers, much of what is being repeated is missed shots. The new player is struggling to work out a wonky stroke and poor alignment. At the same time they're trying to figure out exactly where to send the CB in order to pocket the OB, which will not begin to improve until the player puts in enough table time to develop a fairly consistent stroke. Once they're confident the CB is consistently going close to where they're aiming, then begins the trial and error of trying to find the right aim for each shot. This rote process takes more table time, until finally some degree of aiming skill is developed.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to believe that a good aiming system could speed the process up dramatically? If you know exactly where to aim without having to guess or use trial and error, you'll be working on your stroke along with a known aim line. You'll know exactly when your stroke is on because the OB will hit the pocket. You won't have to learn where or how to aim. Once your stroke is on, the aiming is already there, automatic.

I think this is the benefit of a good aiming system, to provide a real shortcut to developing a feel/instinct for pocketing balls. If the system doesn't provide a shortcut to becoming a solid shot maker, then you may as well stick with the traditional rote method because most of us are proof that it works.

 

[BC21]

I looked up "system" in the dictionary and it connotes something that is more complex, in general. I think "method" might be a more appropriate word to describe how to hit a ball with a stick.

"Aiming method" doesn't sound as good as "aiming system" since "system" implies something more complex (and presumably more worth paying for). I don't think this is anything nefarious. It's just an easy word to use.

I'm sure back in the stone ages they were talking about a system designed to provide fuel for the continuation of thought, motion and productivity. We now call it a fork. :smile:

I hear ya. I think Spidey had the same point, that the word "system" sounds and sells better than "method". I get that.

 

[Dan White]

And at first, when using traditional aiming methods like estimating contact points or ghostball centers, much of what is being repeated is missed shots. The new player is struggling to work out a wonky stroke and poor alignment. At the same time they're trying to figure out exactly where to send the CB in order to pocket the OB, which will not begin to improve until the player puts in enough table time to develop a fairly consistent stroke. Once they're confident the CB is consistently going close to where they're aiming, then begins the trial and error of trying to find the right aim for each shot. This rote process takes more table time, until finally some degree of aiming skill is developed.

I think it would be interesting to use a beginner as a guinea pig to try and separate stroke problems from aim problems. Let me 'splain:

1. Set up a straight in shot and have the beginner shoot the ball 100 times. Maybe let him hit 20 balls at a time throughout the day so he doesn't get tired/lazy. What does this do? Since he knows the aim point on a straight in shot, these shots will establish his "stroke baseline." So if he pockets 50 out of 100 then we can say he has a stroke baseline of 50%. He misses half his shots because of his stroke (including alignment, vision and all that) and NOT because of his poor aim since he knows where to aim 100%.

2. Set up a 36.9 degree cut shot at the same distance as above (or any other cut shot). Do the same experiment and see what his pocketing % is. If it is now 30% then we know he misses 50% due to stroke problems and 20% due to his aim ability. If he still misses only 50% of the shots then we might say he can aim just as well at the ghost ball position as straight in.

Maybe the experiment above isn't perfect, but with a statistician recommending the correct number of trials, I think some interesting things could be learned. I wonder if anybody has done something like this before with actual numbers?

Maybe I should patent my new "pool diagnosis system." :grin:

 

[bbb]

I think that no matter what, you always have to hit the thousands of shots to gain the ability to accurately hit where the aiming "system" (or not) wants you to hit the ball. Think about how the average player looks standing at the table when they start out -- awkward, can barely make a bridge, maybe a swoop or two during delivery. After thousands of shots they'll look smoother but then it takes thousands more to gain a degree of accuracy and finesse. Thousands more to actually play the game at a decent level. Even thousands and thousands more to become proficient.

Lou Figueroa

lou
i agree 100%......................

 

[BC21]

I think it would be interesting to use a beginner as a guinea pig to try and separate stroke problems from aim problems. Let me 'splain:

1. Set up a straight in shot and have the beginner shoot the ball 100 times. Maybe let him hit 20 balls at a time throughout the day so he doesn't get tired/lazy. What does this do? Since he knows the aim point on a straight in shot, these shots will establish his "stroke baseline." So if he pockets 50 out of 100 then we can say he has a stroke baseline of 50%. He misses half his shots because of his stroke (including alignment, vision and all that) and NOT because of his poor aim since he knows where to aim 100%.

2. Set up a 36.9 degree cut shot at the same distance as above (or any other cut shot). Do the same experiment and see what his pocketing % is. If it is now 30% then we know he misses 50% due to stroke problems and 20% due to his aim ability. If he still misses only 50% of the shots then we might say he can aim just as well at the ghost ball position as straight in.

Maybe the experiment above isn't perfect, but with a statistician recommending the correct number of trials, I think some interesting things could be learned. I wonder if anybody has done something like this before with actual numbers?

Maybe I should patent my new "pool diagnosis system." :grin:

I like this idea. Instead of a straight-in baseline shot, I'd probably go with a 1/2 ball shot. Only because the center of the OB may be more difficult to pinpoint than its outer surface/edge. Then setup the thinner cut, where the aim needs to be outside the OB. Have the player stand behind the ball and visualize where the ghostball center should be, and then go back to the CB and try to hit that spot.

If the newbie makes everything on his first try then he's ready to be seasoned! Lol. If not, I believe the stats as you describe could determine the progress of stroke development vs aiming development. It would really be a great experiment to do the same "diagnosis system" on a second newbie using an aiming system iinstead of the ghostball visual. You can run stats to compare contact point aiming to ghostball aiming.

If I were a certified instructor I'd try this out on a few willing students -- free. It would definitely take a few diagnoses to prove any solid claims about the benefits of any particular aiming system (mainly due to the fact that some people learn faster or have more natural skill from the get go).

 

[Straightpool_99]

Looks like a couple of bans are in effect. I would hope that none of the regulars here chime in about how bad this guy or that guy was for the forum while they are not able to defend themselves.

Why would anyone do that? This forum has maybe 20 (and that may be a stretch) active posters and half of them get banned regularly. I don't think that is anything to celebrate or gloat about, it's just sad.

I disagree with the definition of aiming system which is used here. To me an aiming system is more or less an algorithm, that when followed, will put your cue on the shotline.

Stick aiming, contact points, ghost balls, fractional overlap (without number systems) are not as much systems as "visualization frameworks". It's a way to categorize and group your observations together in order to enhance learning. IMO it's always useful to use such frameworks, but it's of little importance what your chosen framework is (within reason), so long as you are consistently applying it.

CTE, Poolology, SEE, 90/90 are the best examples of aiming systems. Even the Mullen system would fall under this category. It is a completely different category, since they claim to provide you with the methods to find the shotline as well as a way to aim at your target, rather than rely on your experience for the former (as much) as the frameworks, at least in theory. In practise, however, the experience is still needed so wether or not a foolproof aiming system (for humans) actually exist is up for debate

 

[lfigueroa]

Looks like a couple of bans are in effect. I would hope that none of the regulars here chime in about how bad this guy or that guy was for the forum while they are not able to defend themselves.

Someone got banned?

Lou Figueroa
shocked
shocked I say

 

[lfigueroa]

As a buddy of mine says, "I'm pick'n up what you're lay'n down." I do believe it takes a lot of repetition before any decent skill level is reached. And at first, when using traditional aiming methods like estimating contact points or ghostball centers, much of what is being repeated is missed shots. The new player is struggling to work out a wonky stroke and poor alignment. At the same time they're trying to figure out exactly where to send the CB in order to pocket the OB, which will not begin to improve until the player puts in enough table time to develop a fairly consistent stroke. Once they're confident the CB is consistently going close to where they're aiming, then begins the trial and error of trying to find the right aim for each shot. This rote process takes more table time, until finally some degree of aiming skill is developed.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to believe that a good aiming system could speed the process up dramatically? If you know exactly where to aim without having to guess or use trial and error, you'll be working on your stroke along with a known aim line. You'll know exactly when your stroke is on because the OB will hit the pocket. You won't have to learn where or how to aim. Once your stroke is on, the aiming is already there, automatic.

I think this is the benefit of a good aiming system, to provide a real shortcut to developing a feel/instinct for pocketing balls. If the system doesn't provide a shortcut to becoming a solid shot maker, then you may as well stick with the traditional rote method because most of us are proof that it works.

How does a good aiming system help if you cannot consistently hit the broad side of a barn?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

lou
i agree 100%......................

lol.

Lou Figueroa

 

[BC21]

Why would anyone do that? This forum has maybe 20 (and that may be a stretch) active posters and half of them get banned regularly. I don't think that is anything to celebrate or gloat about, it's just sad.

I disagree with the definition of aiming system which is used here. To me an aiming system is more or less an algorithm, that when followed, will put your cue on the shotline.

Stick aiming, contact points, ghost balls, fractional overlap (without number systems) are not as much systems as "visualization frameworks". It's a way to categorize and group your observations together in order to enhance learning. IMO it's always useful to use such frameworks, but it's of little importance what your chosen framework is (within reason), so long as you are consistently applying it.

CTE, Poolology, SEE, 90/90 are the best examples of aiming systems. Even the Mullen system would fall under this category. It is a completely different category, since they claim to provide you with the methods to find the shotline as well as a way to aim at your target, rather than rely on your experience for the former (as much) as the frameworks, at least in theory. In practise, however, the experience is still needed so wether or not a foolproof aiming system (for humans) actually exist is up for debate

Excellent post. It's obvious that experience is still a necessity if a player wants to reach a level of instinctual play. A good aiming system can definitely move you toward that goal quicker than traditional visual frameworks. But the ultimate goal should be to surpass the aiming system so that shot making becomes a freely automatic process, independent of concious thought or specific systematic procedures. At least that's my opinion.

 

[BC21]

How does a good aiming system help if you cannot consistently hit the broad side of a barn?

Lou Figueroa

I wish I could go back in time, back to my broad-side-of-the-barn-missing days, just so I could try my aiming system as a newbie. I feel like if you know exactly where the aim line is before you step into the shot, you can focus on straightening out your rubbery stroke and poor shot alignment. When a player guesses where to aim and then strokes the cue hoping he"s right, but ends up missing the shot by 3 or 4 inches, he has no clue if his potluck stroke caused the miss or if his aim was just wrong. At least with a good system he'll know the aim was correct and the stroke needs work. Sure there's more to it, like stance, grip, alignment, etc...but at least one part of the equation will be known

 

[Dan White]

I like this idea. Instead of a straight-in baseline shot, I'd probably go with a 1/2 ball shot. Only because the center of the OB may be more difficult to pinpoint than its outer surface/edge. Then setup the thinner cut, where the aim needs to be outside the OB. Have the player stand behind the ball and visualize where the ghostball center should be, and then go back to the CB and try to hit that spot.

If the newbie makes everything on his first try then he's ready to be seasoned! Lol. If not, I believe the stats as you describe could determine the progress of stroke development vs aiming development. It would really be a great experiment to do the same "diagnosis system" on a second newbie using an aiming system iinstead of the ghostball visual. You can run stats to compare contact point aiming to ghostball aiming.

If I were a certified instructor I'd try this out on a few willing students -- free. It would definitely take a few diagnoses to prove any solid claims about the benefits of any particular aiming system (mainly due to the fact that some people learn faster or have more natural skill from the get go).

Regarding a half ball hit, I dunno. I think, for me, it seems easier to tell someone "OK, this is a straight in shot. You want to replace that ball with the cue ball." To me there is nothing more fundamental. It is well known that we often see the left edge of the ball differently than the right edge. So I think that introduces another variable in the "baseline" step which is supposed to be about minimizing any error due to aiming.

I think you might also have to get a player who is a beginner, but not too much of one. You don't want them to get any better at the end of the baseline test compared to the beginning. lol.