Aiming Metrics

[Low500]

I didn’t say players who are getting better....I said master/shortstops/pro areas.
Case in point... as we know most pros won’t talk about or can’t explain how they aim unless ghost ball generally speaking.
Of course it’s important but by that time the aiming is all subconscious so my comments are more in regard to conscious importance I guess you could say. It was high on my priority list once as well.....it’s a part of my subconscious as I consciously have more important things to spend my attention on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have seen at least 5 memorable situations where a pro would miss a shot and say afterward..."I misjudged that shot. I hit it as a half-ball and it was a 3/4". I remember seeing Mizerak say that at one of Grady's one pocket tournaments when he was playing Strawberry. Why was it so significant?...because I had some heavy money down on the Miz, that's why. I heard some guy, who Cliff Joyner was drilling at Spartanburg, say the same thing.
To me, this provides object lessons in the area that the pros DO have methods of aiming....agreed, they've done it so much it has become second nature.
The formal method can be ghost target, fractions, CTE, see-see, contact points, intuition, estimating, or whatever. But there is some method in place that works for them and they continue to rely on it.
In this aiming forum, we get down to discussing which method is best or what this method will do or any of the other arguments that get the tempers going. All unnecessary. ("my dad can beat up your dad" sounding nonsense.)
The method that takes a player to greater heights than he/she ever imagined is the correct method FOR THAT PLAYER. No matter what it is named. (why that angers so many and brings out the worst in people is a mystery to me..??)
Life goes on...

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I aim without regard to any “method” but rely on intuition and what my eyes and brain tell me.

That's your method - i.e., how you do it.

I try not to become obsessed with the pocket.

I've seen this comment before, but don't know what it means. Can you explain more?

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

I aim without regard to any “method” but rely on intuition and what my eyes and brain tell me. I try not to become obsessed with the pocket.

Same here. But teaching someone how to do this is not so simple. I mean, you can't teach intuition. It takes countless shots to reach that level of play with any consistency. For the average pool player that plays once or twice a week, it could take years before they reach that level, if ever.

In comes the aiming systems/methods/metrics, hopefully providing a quicker path than traditional trial-and-error for average players to become more intuitive when it comes to pocketing balls, eventually freeing up the mind to allow it to focus more on patterns and cb control.

 

[greyghost]

I have seen at least 5 memorable situations where a pro would miss a shot and say afterward..."I misjudged that shot. I hit it as a half-ball and it was a 3/4". I remember seeing Mizerak say that at one of Grady's one pocket tournaments when he was playing Strawberry. Why was it so significant?...because I had some heavy money down on the Miz, that's why. I heard some guy, who Cliff Joyner was drilling at Spartanburg, say the same thing.
To me, this provides object lessons in the area that the pros DO have methods of aiming....agreed, they've done it so much it has become second nature.
The formal method can be ghost target, fractions, CTE, see-see, contact points, intuition, estimating, or whatever. But there is some method in place that works for them and they continue to rely on it.
In this aiming forum, we get down to discussing which method is best or what this method will do or any of the other arguments that get the tempers going. All unnecessary. ("my dad can beat up your dad" sounding nonsense.)
The method that takes a player to greater heights than he/she ever imagined is the correct method FOR THAT PLAYER. No matter what it is named. (why that angers so many and brings out the worst in people is a mystery to me..??)
Life goes on...

Lol I’m not new to this place by many years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

I have seen at least 5 memorable situations where a pro would miss a shot and say afterward..."I misjudged that shot. I hit it as a half-ball and it was a 3/4". I remember seeing Mizerak say that at one of Grady's one pocket tournaments when he was playing Strawberry. Why was it so significant?...because I had some heavy money down on the Miz, that's why. I heard some guy, who Cliff Joyner was drilling at Spartanburg, say the same thing.
To me, this provides object lessons in the area that the pros DO have methods of aiming....agreed, they've done it so much it has become second nature.
The formal method can be ghost target, fractions, CTE, see-see, contact points, intuition, estimating, or whatever. But there is some method in place that works for them and they continue to rely on it.

Interesting and informative post.

In this aiming forum, we get down to discussing which method is best or what this method will do or any of the other arguments that get the tempers going. All unnecessary. ("my dad can beat up your dad" sounding nonsense.)
The method that takes a player to greater heights than he/she ever imagined is the correct method FOR THAT PLAYER. No matter what it is named. (why that angers so many and brings out the worst in people is a mystery to me..??)Life goes on...

This part is unnecessary but let me explain it to you so it is no longer a mystery and you can leave it alone: Nobody in this forum has ever argued much about whether one method was better than another for any particular player. What you are uninformed about is that there was one particular individual making outlandish claims about a system he was selling. People called him out on it and he and his supporters decided to keep arguing the inarguable. More lately, it hasn't been an issue because most have moved on. That's the history in a nutshell.

But then again you have me on ignore so you won't see this. :wink:

 

[cookie man]

Interesting and informative post.



This part is unnecessary but let me explain it to you so it is no longer a mystery and you can leave it alone: Nobody in this forum has ever argued much about whether one method was better than another for any particular player. What you are uninformed about is that there was one particular individual making outlandish claims about a system he was selling. People called him out on it and he and his supporters decided to keep arguing the inarguable. More lately, it hasn't been an issue because most have moved on. That's the history in a nutshell.

But then again you have me on ignore so you won't see this. :wink:

Except the claims are true and the system is out there for free, or you could take a lesson, your choice. The supporters use it and know the claims to be true. The detractors never bothered to completely learn it and just like to put there opinions out there to rile people up. You really should move on from something you know so little about.

 

[greyghost]

Except the claims are true and the system is out there for free, or you could take a lesson, your choice. The supporters use it and know the claims to be true. The detractors never bothered to completely learn it and just like to put there opinions out there to rile people up. You really should move on from something you know so little about.

The heck are y’all talking about lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The heck are y’all talking about lol

It's the zombie aiming system debate that refuses to die. Mostly its a debate about what the debate's about.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

It's the zombie aiming system debate that refuses to die. Mostly its a debate about what the debate's about.

pj
chgo

I've left it alone, Dan keeps wanting to drag it in. Debate is really way past done. People are better off leaving it alone and move on to other things for discussion.

 

[justadub]

It's the zombie aiming system debate that refuses to die. Mostly its a debate about what the debate's about.

pj
chgo

Exactly. People want to fight here. Bringing up CTE in threads where it's not being discussed is a sure-fire way to get the stuff swirling.

 

[greyghost]

Exactly. People want to fight here. Bringing up CTE in threads where it's not being discussed is a sure-fire way to get the stuff swirling.

Yeah we should talk more about the dark side


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[paultex]

Has anyone here tried or talked about visually sweeping the ob instread of the CB for certain shots.

I don't use CTE and I really can't pick up anything more than a shotline and know definitively where it is in reality, but visual sweeping of the cb that mr Shuffett invented and I give him that distinction for sure, pure genius, is something I use to solve or guarentee or help produce a particular bias or effect that often times, are not guaranteed by simply saying "im going to load up with right or left" on particular or exotic requirements.

How many times have we all applied right or left and get neither or sometimes the opposite at launch point. I sure as hell have and that is a serious problem. But over time, less and less and to a almost 100% degree, but doesn't mean the shot was successful, but at least the effect was applied and successful.

Visually sweeping the cb has been a big solve but I've found sweeping the ob has a very interesting effect and outcome and I recommend any one curious to try it.

If you have a particular shot you miss notoriously thick or thin, however you pick up the aim, visually sweep the opposite way of the relationship however one does it as if you took a mirror to the visual.

Yes, this would be incongruous to what the brain says but what's comfortable to the brain be miss'n dat shot in a way dat shouldn't be an alot uh foo's keep doing it over and over an have I been and still ams one of dem foo's??

......YEAH DATS RIGHT'LESS'n'LESS MANG

 

[paultex]

Yeah we should talk more about the dark side


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ohhhhh it's you!!! Gasp gasp gasp:happydance::bow-down::kiss:

 

[greyghost]

Ohhhhh it's you!!! Gasp gasp gasp:happydance::bow-down::kiss:

Lmao u something else player


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

I've been rereading this thread and I became more interested in the discussion between Vorpal and Pat and whether aiming is ultimately a conscious, subconscious or combination activity. As I understand it, Vorpal contends that aiming is purely conscious and that aiming doesn't require the subconscious to pocket balls. Maybe I'm oversimplifying his point but that's what I got out of it.

I really only have a layman's understanding of things like the subconscious, unconscious, conscious terms, so I guess I don't know for sure what is technically accurate.

I also like to use the analogy of driving home and not remembering how you got there. You just go on autopilot. To me this is subconscious control. If I run a rack of balls while paying more attention to what is on the radio, I might not realize how I did it. It would seem to me that this would demonstrate that pocketing balls ultimately relies on the subconscious store of knowledge. Maybe Vorpal can elaborate on his point. If I get down on each shot and I shoot when the shot "looks right" is that conscious or subconscious? Do you agree that repetition leads to automatic recall and execution? To me, this is subconscious activity. Now, I don't mean to say you should play without paying attention. You should give full effort on each shot. But the fact that you don't have to give any thought to any shot and still make them all tells me that there is more happening even when you think you are aiming everything up step by step consciously.

I think an example of the conscious and subconscious working hand in hand (like Brian says) can be seen in something like table conditions. Rempe said that whoever adjusts to the table conditions faster will win. "Warming up" is partly the act of seeing how sticky or slick the balls are, how the rails and cloth play. (Before an exhibition, Mosconi would roll a ball by hand into each rail to see how it played). So these variables are consciously added to your memory bank so that when it comes time to play your subconscious will take this new information into account. Maybe it will do so falteringly for the first couple of games, but then after enough feedback the subconscious will have it down.

 

[Brookeland Bill]

All the “systems” merge at some point when it’s time for the cue ball to come in contact with that part of the object ball to pocket the object ball.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

All the “systems” merge at some point when it’s time for the cue ball to come in contact with that part of the object ball to pocket the object ball.

Everything is Ghost Ball.

That's deep.

pj
chgo

 

[MattPoland]

Everything is Ghost Ball.



That's deep.



pj

chgo

Could also be said all systems are “double the distance” if viewed from another perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[greyghost]

Everything is Ghost Ball.



That's deep.



pj

chgo

About as deep as 1st grade


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeyInCali]

Everything is Ghost Ball.

That's deep.

pj
chgo

Anyone who denies imagining the two balls colliding for lining up and cue ball control purposes is ** ********* at best.:grin: