Just saving text. Aperture incidence is the angle at which the object ball intersects the pocket aperture. Aperture obviously, the available tit to tit opening.
Barton's approach to aiming
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Which center? A hole reinforcer has about a five millimeter hole that is represented as blank space. So what happens when the cue ball passes to the left or right of the exact center.
I have a video where I created ghost ball templates with just enough of a hole to allow the ball to stay in place. I marked the center lines and tried very diligently to shoot so that that the cue ball traveled on the ghost ball center shot line.
Even with a template this isn't as easy as it seems like it would be in concept.
No one can argue with the accuracy that snooker players demonstrate. One can't really go wrong with adopting the same approaches to aiming that are prevalent in snooker.
However that doesn't mean that there are not better ways to aim or better ways to learn aiming.
JC
Coos Cues
You see Bob this is why you will never be as good a pool player as most of the posters on this site.No, the Barton who teaches people how to play.Steve Barton
You are stuck in some antiquated way of aiming that just isn't hip enough for modern times.
Poor you........
In the Steve Barton clip, ghostball is described and taught very well, especially the parts about guessing or estimating the aim line. After enough misses and makes, a player can certainly become proficient with it. It usually takes a while...the good ol rote or hamb method.
I'm not sure if a million balls is needed, but at least a few thousand might be required before you are able to consistently make more shots than you miss. And when you finally reach that point, that's when good aiming habits begin to develop, because you're able to successfully repeat more shots. Everything up to that point -- all the trial and error, the intermittent misses and makes required to slowly learn and fine tune your stroke and aiming guesswork -- was certainly time well spent. The results prove it. But I believe the same end results (a consistent stroke and good aiming skills) could be accomplished much quicker if the guesswork could be reduced or eliminated.
It's like this... I can show anyone how to draw Donald Duck, or a car or a bicycle or whatever, and after enough bad attempts you'll start to get an eye or a feel for how to do it. It might take a few hundred tries before you get really good at it, unless you just happen to have some artistic skill already. Now imagine this... Instead of just showing or describing how to do it, and you learning through trial and error, I give you a drawing and have you trace it several times. Tracing the known lines eliminates the guesswork and immediately gives your brain all the information it needs to start connecting those synaptic pathways that will allow you to draw the object free-handed, without thr need to trace it.
Does anyone believe the trial and error method would be quicker than the tracing method, as far as developing the ability to simply grab a pecil and paper and draw the object from scratch?
Aiming can be taught the same way, and a simple ghostball training template is proof of that. It eliminates or greatly reduces the guesswork. But it can't be used in real game situations, and during practice you have to set up every shot with that little device and work with it. It's still better than estimating or guessing where the ghostball is, and it allows for a much quicker learning method than trial and error alone.
I'm not sure if a million balls is needed, but at least a few thousand might be required before you are able to consistently make more shots than you miss. And when you finally reach that point, that's when good aiming habits begin to develop, because you're able to successfully repeat more shots. Everything up to that point -- all the trial and error, the intermittent misses and makes required to slowly learn and fine tune your stroke and aiming guesswork -- was certainly time well spent. The results prove it. But I believe the same end results (a consistent stroke and good aiming skills) could be accomplished much quicker if the guesswork could be reduced or eliminated.
It's like this... I can show anyone how to draw Donald Duck, or a car or a bicycle or whatever, and after enough bad attempts you'll start to get an eye or a feel for how to do it. It might take a few hundred tries before you get really good at it, unless you just happen to have some artistic skill already. Now imagine this... Instead of just showing or describing how to do it, and you learning through trial and error, I give you a drawing and have you trace it several times. Tracing the known lines eliminates the guesswork and immediately gives your brain all the information it needs to start connecting those synaptic pathways that will allow you to draw the object free-handed, without thr need to trace it.
Does anyone believe the trial and error method would be quicker than the tracing method, as far as developing the ability to simply grab a pecil and paper and draw the object from scratch?
Aiming can be taught the same way, and a simple ghostball training template is proof of that. It eliminates or greatly reduces the guesswork. But it can't be used in real game situations, and during practice you have to set up every shot with that little device and work with it. It's still better than estimating or guessing where the ghostball is, and it allows for a much quicker learning method than trial and error alone.
JC
Coos Cues
I was being sarcastic. Bob has been a solid player for a long time. Better than most who are on here discussing how to aim.I believe Bob is better than most of you think..
Not many can say they win SVB on 14.1 competition on old days
if he had little better stroke mechanics and little younger he would be probably monster..
Geosnookery
Well-known member
I mostly agree. There is ‘usually’ no benefit to reinventing the the wheel. However, my observation is that the top percent in many sports aren’t approaching the task at hand with the same mindset as the other 99%.
Ronnie O'Sullivan puts spin on 100% of shots. Judd Trumps, who may be a bit autistic, shifts his cue as he strokes...etc. They aren’t seeing the game as most do. It’s not all geometry to them but an instinctive calculus.
I use some informal ghost ball method when explaining to newbies where to hit the object ball. However, some newbies with an innate natural talent are potting difficult balls from the get go. It’s the same when teaching guitar...some kids are as proficient after a couple of months as I was after a year of dedicated practice learning scales, chord progressions, etc...they are hearing music differently.
How do you KNOW O'Sullivan puts spin on 100% of shots?
That's a heavy comment...how do you KNOW?
Geosnookery
Well-known member
Not a secret. It’s discussed by other pro players. You can watch it on
YouTube videos when discussing his cueing style. O'Sullivan himself never claims to know anything about deflection, throw, etc. Ebdon, Murphy and otherss who play Ronnie bring it up.
Last edited:
Then your information is merely hearsay.
100% spin.??????
I'm not buying into that tale.
O'Sullivan is NO dummy. And the LAST thing he's going to do is let anyone else know what he REALLY does at the table.
It is common knowledge. Ronnie claims that hitting centerball is impossible and that why he always use spin on it. But anyways... Many people say and do differently what what they say.
Ronnie trolled the world on that one , imo. Just like this pool great who claimed he aimed the side of his shaft .
And this pool instructor who said on straight in shot, pivot from the side of the cue ball to the center . Good Lord .
When people claim pool can be played at a high level with mostly center ball, to me that's a huge red flag. They're either lying for some reason or they can't play. It's like people claiming the earth is flat. After that, everything they say as automatically suspect, no matter how benign it seemingly is.
I am using edge of my shaft when i aim certain cuts or english. Other shots i use middle of my shaft. I use what gives me easiest aiming picture on current angle. I know it works. If you cannot understand what SVB means it wont mean he lies. I came idea about that back in 90´s but then i did not have knowledge to make it work all shots so i went back to "just aim". And hit a plateau. Did not get any better.
Started to put effort to learn aim when i made comeback after 7 years of no play and i am still getting better at age of 45.
I agree. High level play you have to be able to shoot with any english and speed any angle.
Note too that in O'Sullivan's case the itty bitty tip allows finer placement not to mention the smaller ball absolutely requires it. As far as high level of play, "only center ball" certainly stiffens the requirements of play but the only barrier is in the mind of the player.
Yes, depending on what you mean. It makes it easier to see what part of the tip hits the ball. It doesn’t change the size of the contact area.
pj
chgo