Aiming System Or Not?

[Sharivari]

I've always had the feeling that this topic divides people the most. So I finally made a video about it. Keep in mind, that this is my personal opinion and that it worked for me. I am also convinced, that this approach is going to work for a lot of other players, that's why I've shared it.

Side note: The graph at 1:20 shows not only how the cue ball will deviate from the aiming line, but also how the object ball will deviate from the ghost ball line

However, I would also be really interested in your input on that topic. Are you using an aiming system or not? What do you think are the general pros and cons of using an system? What's your experience in general?

 

[Pin]

My view is the unconscious (after acquiring experience) is far, far better at aiming than the conscious.
In fact, the best thing about pool, IMO, is consistently making shots that require a level of precision that you know you couldn't calculate consciously.
So an aiming system is good while you're learning (or later on, when you're expanding into new skills like working out complex banks), but the long-term objective should be to be able to play by intuition.

 

[garczar]

I've always had the feeling that this topic divides people the most. So I finally made a video about it. Keep in mind, that this is my personal opinion and that it worked for me. I am also convinced, that this approach is going to work for a lot of other players, that's why I've shared it.

Side note: The graph at 1:20 shows not only how the cue ball will deviate from the aiming line, but also how the object ball will deviate from the ghost ball line

However, I would also be really interested in your input on that topic. Are you using an aiming system or not? What do you think are the general pros and cons of using an system? What's your experience in general?

There is a section on here just for this, 'the aiming zoo'.

 

[The_JV]

Not sure how much chatter you'll receive in the main forum, as there's a specific 'Aiming' forum.

However I'll entertain it:
I have never used a system when playing pool.
I have entertained 'ghost ball', 'Poolology', and 'CTE' (center to edge) as means of grasping subject matter.
I did use ghost ball ~30yrs ago when learning snooker. ..I think

I think a system is a great way for someone to fast track learning the basics of what it takes to put a ball in a pocket. It can also be a good tool for experienced players to break out of slumps if they find themselves in one.

IMHO, systems get you close to where you need to be, but trial and error experience when experimenting with CB control will eventually have to grab the reins and drive you to proficiency.

Again imho, a system shouldn't be more difficult to adopt then the game itself. What works well for some doesn't neccessarily work for everybody.

 

[Sharivari]

Oh, can a mod move it into the other forum?

 

[straightline]

I use contact geometry to identify the main shot parameters including the stick line. This is a more complete shot representation than anything else I can think of and it greatly simplifies the process of applying shot variables ie. speed and direction.

 

[FeelDaShot]

I find it to be ridiculous when people claim that they don't use an aiming system. Everyone has some type of aiming process that they follow, otherwise they would never consistently make a ball.

Everyone gets down on the shot and uses their eyes to determine where to aim. That is the general aiming process/system. The minor details are what makes one method different from another. Your specific aiming method may be completely unique and nearly impossible to explain but it is still considered an aiming system lol.

 

[cookie man]

There is a section on here just for this, 'the aiming zoo'.

Correction. It's the "aiming shit show forum" now that English is back posting under a different name

 

[mikemosconi]

I do think that this is very close to the most common sense way of approaching where to hit the OB - I agree that there are basically only about 8 locations on one half an OB that, based on the angle of approach from the CB - will pocket just about every possible shot.

While standing behind the CB and OB and noting where on the cushion the OB will strike given a center to center ball hit from the CB; AND, then noting where that OB will hit the cushion relative to the desired pocket, over time one can learn to see the appropriate point on the OB to hit - it is one of 8 points on half the OB. Now you move into the line of the shot as pre determined and begin the eye pattern movements between CB and OB, followed by warm up strokes.

I don't think it is a system, it is just a method, not perfect, subject to other variables that would need to be factored in as adjustments to the point of aim ( any side spin being the biggest adjustment) . Let's face it- most pros have been playing several hours a day since they were in their teens, many, if not most never held a full time job for any length of time, anyone playing that much may in fact not be conscious of any aiming method that they employ.

For most pool players, they DO need some point of reference BC they simply don't have enough playing hours logged in to shoot consistently well by instinct. I worked full time, traveled extensively for business, owned a home, raised a family - even with a table in my home I felt that I needed to develop SOMETHING to keep me more consistent in pocketing balls with only 4-6 hours a week devoted to pool playing.

The idea presented here by Sharivari is as good as any - personally I could never catch on to ideas like Ghost ball aiming- I am just not good at visualizing something that really does not exist - especially while trying to perform a perfect stroke. Sharvari's method is not based on visualization as much as it is based on the reality of the angle of the cut shot i.e.- where the CB and OB present themselves relative to the pocket.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

I use system, sadly it is not fool proof.

Those who work & practice hard, are better players.

Utube has so much free instructional material.

But you still must practice. People hate to practice, it like work.

 

[straightline]

Correction. It's the "aiming shit show forum" now that English is back posting under a different name

Who's English and who's English now?

 

[straightline]

I use system, sadly it is not fool proof.

Those who work & practice hard, are better players.

Utube has so much free instructional material.

But you still must practice. People hate to practice, it like work.

My system is perfect but if it were fool proof it wouldn't work for me.

 

[bbb]

actually sharivari you do have a system
you look at the line from the object ball to the pocket
then you get behind the cue ball and have learned if you hit it "there" the object ball goes in
you then line up to let the cue ball "hit it there"
thats a preshot routine and system to me

 

[The_JV]

I find it to be ridiculous when people claim that they don't use an aiming system. Everyone has some type of aiming process that they follow, otherwise they would never consistently make a ball.

Everyone gets down on the shot and uses their eyes to determine where to aim. That is the general aiming process/system. The minor details are what makes one method different from another. Your specific aiming method may be completely unique and nearly impossible to explain but it is still considered an aiming system lol.

lol... ok how about this.

The closest thing I use to a 'system' (aka: a predetermined set of instructions that anyone can follow) is the "ghost ball". However that is only used to develop an aim line for me to begin my PSR. After which I then apply my own brand of adjustments, checks, and then corrections to shoot the CB. ...so "process"...?..., yes. A "system" relative to what the OP is asking...?..., not so much.

If you don't think it ridiculous to call "HAMB" a system, then we can say I'm a full blooded system user.

 

[cookie man]

Who's English and who's English now?

English is a guy who got banned multiple times before getting a lifetime ban Guessing it is him or his twin brother posting in the aiming forum now under French Roots. 150 posts in his first 2 days. And he knows everything about everything and will shove it down your throat.

 

[MitchAlsup]

I use ghost ball as a 1st order system, and them make 6 corrections to it in order to compensate for left-right spin, top-bottom spin, CB velocity, whether or not a rail is involved, speed of the OB = cos(angle WRT CB)×CB velocity, and a few more.

Realistically, by the time you have hit the CB 1,000,000 times, you no longer need any system--your brain already figured out the physics yet to transpire.

 

[FeelDaShot]

lol... ok how about this.

The closest thing I use to a 'system' (aka: a predetermined set of instructions that anyone can follow) is the "ghost ball". However that is only used to develop an aim line for me to begin my PSR. After which I then apply my own brand of adjustments, checks, and then corrections to shoot the CB. ...so "process"...?..., yes. A "system" relative to what the OP is asking...?..., not so much.

If you don't think it ridiculous to call "HAMB" a system, then we can say I'm a full blooded system user.

Exactly!! I believe I use the same "system" lol. However, I don't consider hitting a million balls to be a system itself, but it's 100% necessary to develop your personal aiming system through trial and error.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...there are basically only about 8 locations on one half an OB that, based on the angle of approach from the CB - will pocket just about every possible shot.

That was Hal Houle's claim - but it actually takes about 50 different cut angles just to make a spot shot into a 4.5" corner pocket (less from closer, more from farther away). You only get down to 8 cut angles with the OB about 6" away from the pocket.

This is why fractional aiming (and its derivatives) isn't an exact science, but a "reference" system.

pj
chgo

 

[MattPoland]

Partially…

My “system” is to stand behind the shot. See the object ball contact point. See the cueball contact point. Line them up in my vision. And step forward into and down onto the shot without losing that alignment. I wouldn’t exactly call it a system but in the preshot routine sense, it is approached systematically. And I miss when I rush through it.

And seeing the contact points sometimes comes quick and intuitively and sometimes I need to consciously do the parallel-lines technique. And ultimately I feel like the alignment is good if I see equal-overlaps on each side of the contact point alignment. So there is a little blending of approaches in there.

 

[mikemosconi]

That was Hal Houle's claim - but it actually takes about 50 different cut angles just to make a spot shot into a 4.5" corner pocket (less from closer, more from farther away). You only get down to 8 cut angles with the OB about 6" away from the pocket.

This is why fractional aiming (and its derivatives) isn't an exact science, but a "reference" system.

pj
chgo

A pocket can fit 2 or more balls- (4 1/2 to 5 inch corner pockets. So there is a fairly large margin of error on every shot. I do not believe for one minute that you can hit Half the OB in 49 different places and still miss the shot- there is no way that a shot can only be made by hitting 1/50th of half an OB. I agree with Sharivari- Almost every shot on the table can be made if you are contacting the OB within a 1/16 ( half of 1/8) margin of error from contacting the OB at the spot where the shot splits the pocket in half - making it dead center. Of course speed - or rather some lack of speed can increase the pocket size even more ( pro speed).

Placing the OB on a table spot and moving the CB from the opposite table spot to the rail will NOT result in one having to choose between 50 spots on half the OB to make the spot shot from any place between the spot and the rail where the CB is sitting- you have to factor in the margin of error on any given shot. If making a shot had that high a miss percentage the game would have died out years ago!