As far as the grip, there are two schools of thought. Let the cue do the work, and make the cue work. Both work, but one is more consistent and has less problems.
Shaft aiming
- Thread starter hogie583
- Start date
As far as the grip, there are two schools of thought. Let the cue do the work, and make the cue work. Both work, but one is more consistent and has less problems.
That's right and I tried to exclude grip dynamics and I've come to find out I can't. Boy am I in way over my head now.
Paul, what is best in life?
TO CRUSH ORCOLLO, TO SEE HIM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU AND TO HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THE LINT IN HIS POCKETS.
If the shaft is 12mm wide then the edge of the shaft is 6mm to the side of the center of the shaft - got it.
On a thick 10 degree cut angle, 6mm may be too much and on a thin 90 degree cut angle, it might not be enough if one is using the contact point on the OB to aim the side of the shaft at - not that easy.
Just saying.
On a thick 10 degree cut angle, 6mm may be too much and on a thin 90 degree cut angle, it might not be enough if one is using the contact point on the OB to aim the side of the shaft at - not that easy.
Just saying.
You don't use the contact point, you use the edge of the object ball (most often). And you do simple adjustments based on shaft size. Regardless the size, the aim will be reproducible and consistent once you get signed in. So for example, one shaft may be slightly beyond the edge where as another shaft is exactly on the edge depending on shaft size. As long as you don't switch shafts you figure out the aiming points pretty quickly. you can also offset the shaft size by moving "slightly" from center to inside our outside and shaft aim from that point. It really is pretty simple in terms of aiming, the consistent stroke is the key that makes it work and thats much more difficult to master in my opinion.
Another overall thought on shaft aiming as a consistent aiming method. Most people agree that a 1/2 ball shot is viable aiming position for certain cut angle. In other words aiming the center of cue ball to outside edge of the object ball will create a perfectly geometrical aiming system for certain cut angles. If this is true, doesn't it follow that all other cut angles would also have a corresponding center of cueball to some certain part of the object ball which was also reproducible. I understand that it is harder to find some cut angles because it doesn't seem as objective as center to edge for a 1/2 ball hit.... but still... it seems obvious that geometry demands there are reproducible aiming systems that show you how to align to the object ball.
by Matthew Sherman
Updated October 30, 2017
CONCLUSION
Following long experience teaching students with varying skill levels from rank beginners through the professional level, and working through attendant factors such as collision- and spin-induced throw, and canvassing many professionals about their aim systems, the author has concluded that the contact point and parallel aim systems provide the best results for the beginning to intermediate player...
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-best-pool-aim-systems-367995
Updated October 30, 2017
CONCLUSION
Following long experience teaching students with varying skill levels from rank beginners through the professional level, and working through attendant factors such as collision- and spin-induced throw, and canvassing many professionals about their aim systems, the author has concluded that the contact point and parallel aim systems provide the best results for the beginning to intermediate player...
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-best-pool-aim-systems-367995
One thing I've noticed about instructors is that each has their own preference when it comes to teaching aiming methods. Matt believes the contact points and parallel shift is the best, while Dr Dave and Dr Cue adamantly believe ghostball is a better choice.
However, a few months ago I did a very interesting aiming analysis using my wife as a student. She is not a pool player, not at all. I setup a straight shot into a corner pocket, the OB 28" out and the CB 20" away from the OB. She made 2 out of 30! (Bless her heart!) Figuring her stroke and alignment were too wonky, I moved the CB closer to the OB, right at 10", to minimize stroke errors. She then made 26 of 30 shots (87%). Since she knew exactly where to aim (straight through CCB to center of OB), I figure the 4 misses (13%) were due to excessive stroke/alignment flaws. This 87% is her baseline, the best she can do with the fundamentals she's currently working with.
Next, I moved the OB 4 or 5 inches up table to a cut shot, and then explained exactly where the ghostball should be and even put another CB at the back of the OB to temporarily demonstrate the visualization. I showed her how to stand behind the OB and look down the shot line to get an idea where the ghostball center should be on the cloth behind the OB. She pocketed 3 out of 30, or 10%, missing a total of 27 shots. According to her baseline, at this close distance her faulty stroke can send the CB to where she's aiming around 87% of the time. So 4 misses could be chalked up as stroke-related, while the other 23 can be attributed to poor guesswork in determining exactly where to aim. In other words, of the 27 missed shots, she missed 15% due to stroke flaws and 85% due to aiming error.
I then told her the cut shot was a 1/4 ball hit. Of course she had no idea what I was talking about. So I put the other CB behind the OB again in the ghostball position. I showed her how, from the shot perspective standing behind the CB, a 1/4 overlap/eclipse of the ghostball and OB could be viewed. Then I removed the ghostball and told her to aim in a manner that would cause the side of the cue shaft to be about 3/10 to a 1/4 inch from the edge of the object ball, explaining that this aim point would produce that 1/4 overlap we want. She went on to pocket 18 of 30 shots (60%). Boy was she excited! Lol!
Once she had a better idea of where to aim, using the edge of the OB as a reference, her pocketing percentage for this particular shot improved by 600%. Considering her lack of solid stroke fundamentals accounted for about 4 missed shots, the other 8 misses were more than likely due to her inability to consistently visualize an accurate 1/4 aim point. Still, knowing exactly where to aim vs guessing/estimating where to aim produced better shot making percentages, which increases confidence and leads to faster learning.
Out of curiosity I had her do 60 more shots, which she didn't mind at all because she was seeing positive results and potential. Keeping the CB 10" from the OB, I thickened the angle up a little and asked her to try the ghostball method again. She made 6 of 30. I then showed her that the shot was an exact 1/2 ball aim and showed her exactly where to aim her cue. She made 24 out of 30.
My reason for doing this last round of shots was to make sure her brain wasn't already figuring out the ghostball position, thinking maybe her 1/4 ball shots got better because of that instead of because I showed her exactly where to aim. Anyway, after slighty changing the angle and having her try ghostball again, I knew her brain hadn't clicked onto it yet. Her nailing 24 of 30 once I showed her the 1/2 ball aim, well...to me that proves that knowing where to aim, regardless of faulty stroke mechanics, can really improve shot making skills. It was immediate and obvious results comparing the two learning methods, ghostball vs Poolology. I'm sure a similar comparison using contact points would produce the same outcome, if not even more lopsided because visualizing the contact point line and then accurately shifting the cue stick parallel to this line in order to hit the aim line, well....that would surely be more complicated than pointing to a spot on the OB and saying "aim here".
However, a few months ago I did a very interesting aiming analysis using my wife as a student. She is not a pool player, not at all. I setup a straight shot into a corner pocket, the OB 28" out and the CB 20" away from the OB. She made 2 out of 30! (Bless her heart!) Figuring her stroke and alignment were too wonky, I moved the CB closer to the OB, right at 10", to minimize stroke errors. She then made 26 of 30 shots (87%). Since she knew exactly where to aim (straight through CCB to center of OB), I figure the 4 misses (13%) were due to excessive stroke/alignment flaws. This 87% is her baseline, the best she can do with the fundamentals she's currently working with.
Next, I moved the OB 4 or 5 inches up table to a cut shot, and then explained exactly where the ghostball should be and even put another CB at the back of the OB to temporarily demonstrate the visualization. I showed her how to stand behind the OB and look down the shot line to get an idea where the ghostball center should be on the cloth behind the OB. She pocketed 3 out of 30, or 10%, missing a total of 27 shots. According to her baseline, at this close distance her faulty stroke can send the CB to where she's aiming around 87% of the time. So 4 misses could be chalked up as stroke-related, while the other 23 can be attributed to poor guesswork in determining exactly where to aim. In other words, of the 27 missed shots, she missed 15% due to stroke flaws and 85% due to aiming error.
I then told her the cut shot was a 1/4 ball hit. Of course she had no idea what I was talking about. So I put the other CB behind the OB again in the ghostball position. I showed her how, from the shot perspective standing behind the CB, a 1/4 overlap/eclipse of the ghostball and OB could be viewed. Then I removed the ghostball and told her to aim in a manner that would cause the side of the cue shaft to be about 3/10 to a 1/4 inch from the edge of the object ball, explaining that this aim point would produce that 1/4 overlap we want. She went on to pocket 18 of 30 shots (60%). Boy was she excited! Lol!
Once she had a better idea of where to aim, using the edge of the OB as a reference, her pocketing percentage for this particular shot improved by 600%. Considering her lack of solid stroke fundamentals accounted for about 4 missed shots, the other 8 misses were more than likely due to her inability to consistently visualize an accurate 1/4 aim point. Still, knowing exactly where to aim vs guessing/estimating where to aim produced better shot making percentages, which increases confidence and leads to faster learning.
Out of curiosity I had her do 60 more shots, which she didn't mind at all because she was seeing positive results and potential. Keeping the CB 10" from the OB, I thickened the angle up a little and asked her to try the ghostball method again. She made 6 of 30. I then showed her that the shot was an exact 1/2 ball aim and showed her exactly where to aim her cue. She made 24 out of 30.
My reason for doing this last round of shots was to make sure her brain wasn't already figuring out the ghostball position, thinking maybe her 1/4 ball shots got better because of that instead of because I showed her exactly where to aim. Anyway, after slighty changing the angle and having her try ghostball again, I knew her brain hadn't clicked onto it yet. Her nailing 24 of 30 once I showed her the 1/2 ball aim, well...to me that proves that knowing where to aim, regardless of faulty stroke mechanics, can really improve shot making skills. It was immediate and obvious results comparing the two learning methods, ghostball vs Poolology. I'm sure a similar comparison using contact points would produce the same outcome, if not even more lopsided because visualizing the contact point line and then accurately shifting the cue stick parallel to this line in order to hit the aim line, well....that would surely be more complicated than pointing to a spot on the OB and saying "aim here".
Which leads me to this question. Why do "boneheads" who think they're either great players or know everything there is to know about pool say, "aiming isn't important...I've never used an aiming system...I don't even aim...I just see the shot...I can't tell you what I do in the aligning process to pocket balls...it's all about the stroke".
Do you know any players like this who say the above and give NO information or misinformation because it certainly is erroneous and completely contradicts your study and experiments with the wife?
Or does aiming only pertain to hack beginners?
Last edited:
Which leads me to this question. Why do "boneheads" who think they're either great players or know everything there is to know about pool say, "aiming isn't important...I've never used an aiming system...I don't even aim...I just see the shot...I can't tell you what I do in the aligning process to pocket balls...it's all about the stroke".
Do you know any players like this who say the above and give NO information or misinformation because it certainly is erroneous and completely contradicts your study and experiments with the wife?
Or does aiming only pertain to hack beginners?
I'm sure I've said those words a time or two, minus the "aiming isn't important" part. I believe what happens after thousands of hours or tens of thousands of shots, the aiming system itself ends up not being used as much as simple memory recall. I can't remember exactly how I first learned to play pool. Maybe I started out using ghostball because that's a common sense/non-system approach -- look where the CB needs to be and then put it there. It was 34 years ago, and it took a few years before I could shoot with any decent amount of consistency. Now I just shoot, paying no attention to gb or contact points. The shots are pure memory recall. Moving the CB around is pure feel.
What my experiment with the wife shows is that knowing where to aim, a known straight line, without guessing or estimating ghostballs or contact points can really be a more productive learning process, and it can shave years off of developing a good sense of feel/automatic memory recall.
Last edited:
Well since many pros claim to use an aiming system in their ball pocketing process and can describe it, they certainly haven't discarded what got them there and NOT use it. Yes, it's now automatic and faster but still there. Just more unconscious. That is until the game winning money ball is on the line. Then you better damn well better believe they aren't leaving anything to happenstance or a "faulty memory".
Most pros, when describing their aiming methods, are more than likely describing how they consciously developed their feel for aiming. Now it's automatic, which means they don't think about it, or, as I said, they "don't pay attention" to it. Of course, when the pressure or heat is on they may actually pay attention and really focus on that contact point, ghostball, or fractional aim point, or whatever, if they feel they need it.
Paying attention to an exact method of aiming on each shot is not playing subconsciously. It is not playing purely by feel or memory recall or automatic "in the zone" shooting. But consciously repeating the method enough will eventually lead to doing it automatically, subconsciously. When this level of play is reached, the system that got you there is basically nothing more than the foundation upon which you developed your aiming skills. You might reference the foundation on occasion, but it's no longer a conscious part of your normal shooting routine.
Last edited:
Where have I said otherwise? Some players revert back and forth more to CONSCIOUS usage than others in the heat of battle and I'm talking about very seasoned players as well as PROS. You, I, or no one can read minds. How in the hell do you know what a person is doing, not doing, seeing, or thinking about?
It doesn't make them any LESS of a player to play consciously. It means they're probably more on the cautious side. It might make them an even BETTER player by not getting sloppy, careless, or cocky. That can certainly happen with too little forethought and taking everything for granted as an "automatic".
Last edited:
You go ballistic because you are incapable of carrying on a friendly conversation with someone that doesn't agree with everything you say, so you inject hostility and insults into the mix.
I said "most" pros, not ALL. Nevertheless, they are using a system. I never said they weren't. The system most are using is their individually-developed sense of FEEL -- a combination of their foundational aiming system combined with superior muscle memory and visual memory. When asked exactly how they aim, they simply describe the foundational aiming method or system. They can't describe or explain how a shot feels of how they just automatically know it when they look at it. And yes they revert back to that foundational system when needed, whether it's one shot per match or every shot in a match....whatever FEELS right at the time, that's what they'll do.
You agree that playing position is purely a feel process. But there are systems available,like Buddy Hall's clock system, to help a player develop a feel for playing position. In other words, eventually, the player will not be paying any attention to one o'clock or two or nine....they will have developed a feel for applying just the right amount of spin needed based on experience. The foundation of this feel was the conscious use of the clock system, but muscle memory and visual memory as developed and programmed by the brain over countless shots have allowed the player to surpass the simple mechanics of the initial english-applying system.
All I'm saying is that the same development process occurs with aiming as well. Eventually the initial aiming process becomes secondary when compared to the more refined method developed by the brain through muscle memory and visual recall. It doesn't matter what system you learn, you can't turn your brain off. Eventually, if you play enough, it will develop for you an individual sense of feel for both pocketing balls and playing position. And when someone asks how you do it, you'll tell them "I use CTE", or "I use Samba", or "I use fractional aiming", or "I use ghostball", etc....or you may say "I really don't know how I do it, but this is how I got started....."
Last edited:
You go ballistic because you are incapable of carrying on a friendly conversation with someone that doesn't agree with everything you say, so you inject hostility and insults into the mix.
I'm capable of doing what needs to be said or done with anybody who isn't a complete know it all like you.
I said "most" pros, not ALL. Nevertheless, they are using a system.
OK, that's a statement of AGREEMENT.
I never said they weren't.
Sure you have. You've said it for YOURSELF! Other than the fractional stuff, you said you DON'T have a system. Somebody called you a liar either in this thread or another one and you denounced him. HE'S RIGHT!!
You do it quite frequently.
The SYSTEM most are using is their individually-developed sense of FEEL -- a combination of their foundational aiming system combined with superior muscle memory and visual memory.
FEEL is not a SYSTEM!!
When asked exactly how they aim, they simply describe the foundational aiming method or system.
OK, we agree again. But who are you to say in all of your worldly infinite wisdom as a non-pro instructor, a non-pro player, they are in fact NOT using it some time, a good part of the time, or all the time? What makes you so all knowing they play with nothing in their mind going on? How do you know Shane isn't using his shaft/tip system on all shots? Have you gone drinking with him and he told you so? Nick Varner was a very methodical and slow player. Almost all of those slow methodical players like him take longer than normal over the shot stroking back and forth while their eyes are going up and down, back and forth from CB to OB, CB to OB, CB to OB. What in the hell are they doing? NOT AIMING? NOT SEEING ANYTHING?
They can't describe or explain how a shot feels of how they just automatically know it when they look at it.
How does a shot FEEL? I know what a shot LOOKS like, but you tell me how to FEEL a shot.
And yes they revert back to that foundational system when needed, whether it's one shot per match or every shot in a match....whatever FEELS right at the time, that's what they'll do.
If they're confident in their foundational, primary, or CHOSEN aiming system over the years, they're using it because it's more reliable than getting over confident to think they can never miss. But we can forget about pros because our chance of missing is far greater. Everybody does NOT revert back to their foundational system. Over time, they/we learn about other systems that are better than the one when we first learned to play. So we changed and have new ones. Maybe even a newer one after the last one. It's the one that's most ACCURATE and RELIABLE.
You agree that playing position is purely a feel process.
For SPEED, yes.
But there are systems available,like Buddy Hall's clock system, to help a player develop a feel for playing position. In other words, eventually, the player will not be paying any attention to one o'clock or two or nine....they will have developed a feel for applying just the right amount of spin needed based on experience.
Why wouldn't he be paying attention to the "clock" positions on the CB? The CLOCK POSITIONS are the shortcuts and learned amount of spin that can be put on the ball to make it come of the rail to create different angles to all parts of the table. How hard you HIT the CB is where FEEL comes in.
The foundation of this feel was the conscious use of the clock system, but muscle memory and visual memory as developed and programmed by the brain over countless shots have allowed the player to surpass the simple mechanics of the initial english-applying system.
Maybe, maybe not. How could it possibly hurt to use a 9, 10, or 11 o'clock position as opposed to not even caring where you hit the CB except some place vertically above the equator?
All I'm saying is that the same development process occurs with aiming as well. Eventually the initial aiming process becomes secondary when compared to the more refined method developed by the brain through muscle memory and visual recall.
All you're saying is more double talk beating around the bush to suit your own belief system. I suppose it makes you "FEEL" great.
It doesn't matter what system you learn, you can't turn your brain off.
So does it mean you're using the system or not using the system if the brain is on.
Eventually, if you play enough, it will develop for you an individual sense of feel for both pocketing balls and playing position.
And when someone asks how you do it, you'll tell them "I use CTE", or "I use Samba", or "I use fractional aiming", or "I use ghostball", etc....or you may say "I really don't know how I do it, but this is how I got started....."
Or you could say "I use CTE", or "I use Samba", or I "use fractional aiming", or "I use ghostball", or "I use equal and opposite contact points", and then you may say "THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DO ALL THE TIME"! Sometimes UNCONSCIOUSLY and MANY TIMES CONSCIOUSLY, and I damn well know how I do it.
Listen Brian, I certainly know what it's like to be totally UNCONSCIOUS and in the zone. It's wonderful and amazing. You feel like you can never miss a ball and in some matches or session at the table you don't.
However, it isn't always there or can't be willed. We are not pro players and don't play like pros. So why pretend or play like we're in the zone at all times? It's very fleeting even for the pros but especially for amateurs.
Lets not think about POCKETING balls for a minute. You're in a one pocket match and you have to play a safety by moving a ball away from the pocket of your opponent and at the same time get the CB hidden all the way back up table behind some blocker balls to give him NOTHING to shoot at or get out of jail. Every phase of the hit on the OB with the CB has to be precise aim along with spin and speed to do it.
Is this feel, muscle memory, visual memory or are you going to be AIMING for a perfect hit along with knowledge of the clock system and a FEEL for speed in how hard to hit it to get where your target blockers are up at the head side?
Or is this a bang and hope by guesswork and what your intuition is telling you?
Last edited:
It sure was a much more friendly and constructive forum while you were banned. Once again you have come stomping in with your typical bashing agenda that contributes nothing. I was responding to Matt Sherman's conclusion that the contact point parallel aiming method was best for teaching newbies, based on his teaching experiences. I simply stated the fact that every instructor thinks their particular teaching method, when it comes to aiming, is the best and most effective. I then described a neat little aiming experiment I did to see which of two aiming methods would provide a newbie the best opportunity to begin pocketing balls.
Shaft aiming is very similar to fractional aiming, as both methods focus on an aim point at the ob end of the shot. Both methods use the tip and shaft as a gauge/tool to assist in fine-tuning the shot. So at least my comments are somewhat thread-related and not irrelevant rants for the sole purpose of calling people boneheads or know-it-alls.
And yes, I have stated that I don't use an aiming system. But I haven't said pros never use aiming systems. Sometimes they do, and most of the time they probably don't. I use my system when I FEEL like I should, but usually I just shoot and I'm not sure exactly what system, if any, I'm using. I've also stated that 34 years ago I probably started off using ghostball, but I'm not sure. I am sure that I don't use ghostball now. I don't look at contact points or ghostball spots or pivots or any of that. Occasionally I'll look at a precise fractional aim point. What you get out of that, with your typical Spider logic, is that I'm a liar, "quite frequently" you added, which is a lie itself. Once again, more bashing. You always seem to enjoy being an instigator, a hater. Try being more productive.
Alright, more flame wars.
Where is the mod ?
Where is the mod ?
Yes.....where is the mod? It's easy to back track and see exactly where the flames got started.....the same way they always get started.
I thought it was just CTE threads, but seems to be in all the aiming threads
Since you wish to make those accusations about me, how about we apply those same statement to yourself. Sure is fitting.
If you think for the most part and most of the time aiming systems are of no value and not even used when playing pool by the pros or the amateurs, what the hell are you doing making worthless posts IN AN AIMING FORUM??!! How productive are you?
If you don't believe in God, do you also go to religious forums and post about not believing in God or prayer and get through life just fine and everyone else should consider giving up their beliefs just to be like you?
Last edited:
Where did the flames get started Brian? Where I discussed that I purchased the SAMBA system and what's in it to the OP and others who chimed in?
Or maybe how I'm promoting and talking positively about any and all aiming systems for usage while playing IN AN AIMING FORUM.
Or is it you who continues to post over and over that aiming systems have NO VALUE or AREN'T USED in ACTUAL PLAY either by the pros or amateurs in AN AIMING FORUM?
Yep, where is the mod?