Aiming System Or Not?

[JB Cases]

Whatever you say, now go clean up your face.

For what? Nobody did anything to it. You are simply a parrot for your betters on this subject. I am trying to get the principals together for the benefit of shlubs like you and me. You and me both are simply slightly above average players, nothing special. We have ZERO special insight into how to play that helps the pool world in any way. Everything you use to mock and knock aiming systems is information you got from someone else. I have a little original thought on the subject but without anyone willing to actually collaborate with those thoughts are just musings unlikely to produce any consensus.

Comments like yours ARE DEFINITELY part of the poison that permeates this topic. Your contribution to this thread was literally nothing but antagonistic. That's too bad because I assume you love this sport but not enough to be cool when discussing pool topics.

 

[MattPoland]

These conversations always go into a contentious place. I’m happy just hearing about what other people do and sharing what I do. I have opinions on other systems than mine, mostly critical. But at the same time I support the idea that there are people that endorse them. There’s room in this pool for all of us to swim.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...it's 25 cut angles for the left pocket, and the same 25 for the right.

That’s only the cuts in one direction (left cuts or right cuts) for each pocket. Both left and right cuts to the same pocket, as I described, of course takes twice as many.

Put the ob on the center diamond and now it's much more than 25 different lines to a corner pocket.

Yes, it goes up proportionally with the OB>pocket distance (twice as far = twice as many cut angles).

But even an inexperienced player can get within 15° of the proper aim line by just looking at the shot. That narrows the choices down to about 6 aim lines.

That may narrow down the “references” you use, but not the number of final aim lines needed to sink the shot from all angles.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

These conversations always go into a contentious place. I’m happy just hearing about what other people do and sharing what I do. I have opinions on other systems than mine, mostly critical. But at the same time I support the idea that there are people that endorse them. There’s room in this pool for all of us to swim.

what's yours? Got a link?

 

[cookie man]

That narrows the choices down to about 6 aim lines.

So you are saying 6 aim lines and a pivot here and there. That's what i do.

 

[lfigueroa]

Has nothing to do with the conversation. Fact is that none of the "mockers" ever want to get in the ring with anyone their speed. They look for the lambs who are learning and knock them. I am positive that positive things would come from a good couple days where the good contributors to pool would get together and hash out the aiming system questions and agree on terminology and parameters that both sides are good with. You and me need not be invited as we have nothing to offer that the best people on each side can't figure out and roll-out that information to the rest of us. Then there wouldn't be any need to argue about it once both sides have come to terms.

Otherwise every average player like you and like me will be picking a side and arguing and mocking and being assholes when there is really no reason for people who all love this sport to be arguing so caustically. And when super-nobodies like us argue about things that we have not mastered then we tend to cherry-pick our "evidence" from the words of those far above us. For people like you on the "all feel" side and people like me on the "objective system" side all we really can do is give our opinions and parrot what our "betters" on the subject have to say and tell our personal experience stories.

And we all know how that goes at this point.

There is no need for any of that.

All the "evidence" has been out there for years, to include the newest entry -- a 400 page book describing how to deploy a single aiming system (and if that wasn't enough, there are accompanying videos too). Anyone with an ounce of common sense can evaluate the arguments for and against and come to a conclusion. And frankly, anyone who needs 400 pages (mit videos) to pocket a pool ball has gotta be some kind of basket case to begin with.

YMMNV.

Lou Figueroa

 

[The_JV]

Also it's not ghost ball although you can easily establish an intersection that defines the base of the ghost ball. DEFINES. WTF is ghost ball for that matter? Does it only appear at certain times or for certain people?

So do you know what ghost ball is or not...? How do you state something isn't 'ghost ball' if you don't know WTF it is...?

I'm surprised that you don't have a strong handle on the theory on the practice. Ghost ball is most likely (I won't pretend to know the numbers) the most wildly used method for basic aiming.

 

[The_JV]

Yes Ghost Ball "appears" differently to different people.

Ghost ball is a duplicate of the OB it is directly beside. If a player can't extrapolate an image of a ball from an example a mere 2" inches away, I don't know how any system that requires looking at the balls could possibly help them.

The notion of the "ghost ball" being difficult to gauge in dimension is the biggest weak argument used to disclaim it's effectiveness. No one says it's perfect, but it will get you 90% there as well as any other method.

 

[JB Cases]

Ghost ball is a duplicate of the OB it is directly beside. If a player can't extrapolate an image of a ball from an example a mere 2" inches away, I don't know how any system that requires looking at the balls could possibly help them.

The notion of the "ghost ball" being difficult to gauge in dimension is the biggest weak argument used to disclaim it's effectiveness. No one says it's perfect, but it will get you 90% there as well as any other method.

As I said different people see things in different ways. This is one area I am certain of. I fully disagree with you on this part of the discussion and I can prove it.

 

[The_JV]

As I said different people see things in different ways. This is one area I am certain of. I fully disagree with you on this part of the discussion and I can prove it.

I've watched your videos on the supposed difficulties using ghost ball. I say supposed because I honeslty think a couple of your demonstrations are flawed with bias. Not for everyone though, I have to agree.

 

[JB Cases]

There is no need for any of that.

All the "evidence" has been out there for years, to include the newest entry -- a 400 page book describing how to deploy a single aiming system (and if that wasn't enough, there are accompanying videos too). Anyone with an ounce of common sense can evaluate the arguments for and against and come to a conclusion. And frankly, anyone who needs 400 pages (mit videos) to pocket a pool ball has gotta be some kind of basket case to begin with.

YMMNV.

Lou Figueroa

Well, one thing is certain, you want no part of the author because he would destroy you in a ball pocketing contest. That's as sure as the sun rising. So he must be doing something right. All I know is that you and I will not be known for contributing anything worthwhile to pool but guys like Dave and Stan are known for making great contributions.

If a day comes when they get together and figure some shit out then it will be a great day in pool.

That's the day that super nobodies like you and me can stop arguing about shit above our paygrades. Well at least on this topic. You're an average player like most and have zero input on playing that hasn't been said a zillion times before you were born.

And on this topic all you have to contribute is toxic so that is backwards for pool. I hope for a better time going forward. We get it that you classify players who use systems as less-than. That's not in any way helping to grow this game and a lot of those players you look down on would wipe the floor with either of us.

But mocking is free and you're free to mock so if that makes you happy.

 

[JB Cases]

I've watched your videos on the supposed difficulties using ghost ball. I say supposed because I honeslty think a couple of your demonstrations are flawed with bias. Not for everyone though, I have to agree.

I have run other experiments using my non-pool playing staff and it is fully clear that most people need instruction, simply explaining the concept is not enough.

I plan to do more and prove this even with players.

 

[BC21]

That’s only the cuts in one direction (left cuts or right cuts) for each pocket. Both left and right cuts to the same pocket, as I described, of course takes twice as many.

Yes, it goes up proportionally with the OB>pocket distance (twice as far = twice as many cut angles).

That may narrow down the “references” you use, but not the number of final aim lines needed to sink the shot from all angles.

pj
chgo

I guess my point is that it doesn't matter how many aim lines are needed to pocket a ball from anywhere on the table. All that matters is the handful that pertains to cut angle you're looking at. I mean, it's not like you look at a shot and think, "Damn, I have over 100 choices here!
Which one is it??" Lol.

Instead, if your estimates are even remotely decent, you really only have to choose one from about 3 to 8 choices at most, depending on ob distance from the pocket.

For players with little experience, the odds are pretty good that they'll guess/estimate a good aim line quite often when the ball is closer to the pocket, because there might only be 3 or less aim line options. From farther out, traditionally, it takes a lot of trial and error before the player is able to narrow the shot down to just 1 or 2 aiming options out of about 8 to choose from.

And once the player begins to sink more shots than he misses, he'll finally start the process of successfully repeating those shots enough times to secure them to memory. All the time spent to arrive at this level was due to a lot of trial and error training the mind to narrow down or fine tune all the aiming options for a given cut shot.

But here's what Sharivari and other great instructors or pool experts don't get, or simply don't acknowledge: A player can use traditional methods of estimating the correct aim line (using ghostball or traditional fractional references or contact points, etc....), and eventually, after enough misses and makes, they'll be able to recognize the correct aim or alignment more often. Or they could use a good system that dramatically reduces or eliminates much of the trial and error or guesswork or estimations that are inherent with those traditional aiming methods. This allows the player to get an aim line for most shots without having to go through that time-consuming trial and error phase. A good system simply narrows the shot options down, reducing or eliminating the amount of guesswork or estimations needed.

Whether using traditional trial and error aiming methods to program the mind, or a good system/method to program the mind, the end result is the same.... The player develops a good eye for simply recognizing shots and knowing where to align or aim. The only difference is the amount of time one has to invest in order to reach that point of development.

 

[BC21]

So you are saying 6 aim lines and a pivot here and there. That's what i do.

Or 6 aim lines and a little fine tuning left or right of those lines. You pivot. Others sweep. Others use their ferrule, meaning a certain shot might be aimed 1/8 of their ferrule left or right of a known referenced aim line.

 

[JC]

For what? Nobody did anything to it. You are simply a parrot for your betters on this subject. I am trying to get the principals together for the benefit of shlubs like you and me. You and me both are simply slightly above average players, nothing special. We have ZERO special insight into how to play that helps the pool world in any way. Everything you use to mock and knock aiming systems is information you got from someone else. I have a little original thought on the subject but without anyone willing to actually collaborate with those thoughts are just musings unlikely to produce any consensus.

Comments like yours ARE DEFINITELY part of the poison that permeates this topic. Your contribution to this thread was literally nothing but antagonistic. That's too bad because I assume you love this sport but not enough to be cool when discussing pool topics.

Shouldn't you be running your business? It's been twelve weeks since you cashed my check and I'm very excited to get my new case any day now!!

 

[JB Cases]

Shouldn't you be running your business? It's been twelve weeks since you cashed my check and I'm very excited to get my new case any day now!!

I am running my business. If you want an update on your order contact us and Karen or Asia will help you out. I don't handle orders or order statuses.

Thank you for allowing us to protect your cues.

 

[alstl]

I'm guessing the op means an aiming system from a book or video. I don't use that type of aiming system. As with most players I use my own aiming system. I do use a kicking system from a book/video.

 

[JB Cases]

I guess my point is that it doesn't matter how many aim lines are needed to pocket a ball from anywhere on the table. All that matters is the handful that pertains to cut angle you're looking at. I mean, it's not like you look at a shot and think, "Damn, I have over 100 choices here!
Which one is it??" Lol.

Instead, if your estimates are even remotely decent, you really only have to choose one from about 3 to 8 choices at most, depending on ob distance from the pocket.

For players with little experience, the odds are pretty good that they'll guess/estimate a good aim line quite often when the ball is closer to the pocket, because there might only be 3 or less aim line options. From farther out, traditionally, it takes a lot of trial and error before the player is able to narrow the shot down to just 1 or 2 aiming options out of about 8 to choose from.

And once the player begins to sink more shots than he misses, he'll finally start the process of successfully repeating those shots enough times to secure them to memory. All the time spent to arrive at this level was due to a lot of trial and error training the mind to narrow down or fine tune all the aiming options for a given cut shot.

But here's what Sharivari and other great instructors or pool experts don't get, or simply don't acknowledge: A player can use traditional methods of estimating the correct aim line (using ghostball or traditional fractional references or contact points, etc....), and eventually, after enough misses and makes, they'll be able to recognize the correct aim or alignment more often. Or they could use a good system that dramatically reduces or eliminates much of the trial and error or guesswork or estimations that are inherent with those traditional aiming methods. This allows the player to get an aim line for most shots without having to go through that time-consuming trial and error phase. A good system simply narrows the shot options down, reducing or eliminating the amount of guesswork or estimations needed.

Whether using traditional trial and error aiming methods to program the mind, or a good system/method to program the mind, the end result is the same.... The player develops a good eye for simply recognizing shots and knowing where to align or aim. The only difference is the amount of time one has to invest in order to reach that point of development.

This is exactly what I said many years ago and many times since then.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Wow, no aiming system shooters outnumber the systemers by 2-1.

 

[JB Cases]

Wow, no aiming system shooters outnumber the systemers by 2-1.

And? Does that mean something to you? 50% of respondents use aiming systems, fully or partially. 20 years ago that might have been 5% with the same poll. Always pays to look closely at both sides. And without the mockers and knockers it might even be a higher percentage of aiming systems users. I know with 100% certainty that there are those who chose "no aiming system" who could benefit tremendously by learning and adopting some good ones.