I've come to realize more recently that I am confused as to what the purpose of an aiming system is. I know that sounds dumb, but hear me out for a minute. First a couple of definitions:
Shot Picture - This seems to be the terminology people use here on AZ. I believe the shot picture is the image you see that contains the shaft, cb, ob and pocket. Those items will form an angle with the ob located at that point where the angle is formed. I have always believed that this shot picture gets processed by the brain and when you shoot, it either becomes a success or a failure. By shooting enough successful shots, your brain automatically knows when a shot picture is correct, meaning the ball will be pocketed. (As a side note, this is why a good, straight stroke/alignment is so important. If your mechanics are not consistent, and you pocket the ball one time and then miss the next with the identical shot picture, your brain gets fuzzy feedback and isn't able to store clear information for recall later.)
Recognizing this shot picture is what people call playing by "feel" or "just knowing" when the shot looks right. It is NOT a guess but a recall of past success. It is no more a guess than saying you guessed your dog's name. You know your dog's name because it is committed to memory. You know the shot will be successful because you have committed it to memory (it looks right).
So my argument (and others here) is that the shot picture is what is really important for pocketing balls.
Aiming Systems - systems involve a set number of steps to be performed in order to allow the shooter to get the cue on the correct shot line. That's the theory, but is this really possible?
Someone the other day mentioned that Nick Varner swears by his own aiming system/method but it left me scratching my head. Let's say Nick is cutting a ball to the left and he's going to first aim the left edge of the ferrule at the right edge of the ob. OK, so now Nick is down on the shot using his system, but here's where the system fails. There is nothing to link that system or procedure to the correct shot picture that the brain is looking for. It seems like you have to know the correct shot picture even before you perform the steps required of your aiming system. In this way, when the cue is on the correct line the shot picture looks correct to your brain and you fire away. If this is the way it works, then isn't the aiming system irrelevant?
There is one system, Poolology, that manages to bridge the gap between an aiming system and the shot picture. In Poolology, the random alignment of the cb and ob are linked to the pocket through some math derived from the table rails. The system makes use of some clever geometry of circles and spits out a fractional hit that pockets the ball. Of course you sometimes have to interpolate between fractions, but that is not difficult if you have a good stroke.
It seems like Joe Tucker's system might do something similar but it does seem a bit cumbersome.
CTE users swear that CTE also is able to link the system steps to the correct shot picture, though for me personally let's just say the jury is still out on that.
So anyway this isn't a sales pitch for Poolology, but it does seem to be the exception to the rule. Now, for those who still don't follow what Poolology is all about, it is a way to speed up the learning process so that your brain starts understanding the shot pictures that are successful. Ultimately you won't need to calculate the fractions because you brain will already have stored the information. It is like a child sounding out words. Eventually they just know the word and don't need the crutch.
So back to Nick Varner. Is it possible that Nick is using his aiming system mostly as a method for focusing his attention and nerves on the task? In tennis I know it is important to keep you mind from wandering between points. Players are taught, for example, to adjust their strings or tie their laces before the next point. It clears the mind and keeps you in the present instead of worrying about the last bad shot. Is that really what Nick is doing or does he believe that his method actually puts the cue on the shot line without the necessity of a good shot picture? I think if we had a good hour to discuss this with him, he's going to say the shot picture is what really matters. It would be very interesting to probe him over that (well, maybe not to him).
Where am I going wrong on this?
Shot Picture - This seems to be the terminology people use here on AZ. I believe the shot picture is the image you see that contains the shaft, cb, ob and pocket. Those items will form an angle with the ob located at that point where the angle is formed. I have always believed that this shot picture gets processed by the brain and when you shoot, it either becomes a success or a failure. By shooting enough successful shots, your brain automatically knows when a shot picture is correct, meaning the ball will be pocketed. (As a side note, this is why a good, straight stroke/alignment is so important. If your mechanics are not consistent, and you pocket the ball one time and then miss the next with the identical shot picture, your brain gets fuzzy feedback and isn't able to store clear information for recall later.)
Recognizing this shot picture is what people call playing by "feel" or "just knowing" when the shot looks right. It is NOT a guess but a recall of past success. It is no more a guess than saying you guessed your dog's name. You know your dog's name because it is committed to memory. You know the shot will be successful because you have committed it to memory (it looks right).
So my argument (and others here) is that the shot picture is what is really important for pocketing balls.
Aiming Systems - systems involve a set number of steps to be performed in order to allow the shooter to get the cue on the correct shot line. That's the theory, but is this really possible?
Someone the other day mentioned that Nick Varner swears by his own aiming system/method but it left me scratching my head. Let's say Nick is cutting a ball to the left and he's going to first aim the left edge of the ferrule at the right edge of the ob. OK, so now Nick is down on the shot using his system, but here's where the system fails. There is nothing to link that system or procedure to the correct shot picture that the brain is looking for. It seems like you have to know the correct shot picture even before you perform the steps required of your aiming system. In this way, when the cue is on the correct line the shot picture looks correct to your brain and you fire away. If this is the way it works, then isn't the aiming system irrelevant?
There is one system, Poolology, that manages to bridge the gap between an aiming system and the shot picture. In Poolology, the random alignment of the cb and ob are linked to the pocket through some math derived from the table rails. The system makes use of some clever geometry of circles and spits out a fractional hit that pockets the ball. Of course you sometimes have to interpolate between fractions, but that is not difficult if you have a good stroke.
It seems like Joe Tucker's system might do something similar but it does seem a bit cumbersome.
CTE users swear that CTE also is able to link the system steps to the correct shot picture, though for me personally let's just say the jury is still out on that.
So anyway this isn't a sales pitch for Poolology, but it does seem to be the exception to the rule. Now, for those who still don't follow what Poolology is all about, it is a way to speed up the learning process so that your brain starts understanding the shot pictures that are successful. Ultimately you won't need to calculate the fractions because you brain will already have stored the information. It is like a child sounding out words. Eventually they just know the word and don't need the crutch.
So back to Nick Varner. Is it possible that Nick is using his aiming system mostly as a method for focusing his attention and nerves on the task? In tennis I know it is important to keep you mind from wandering between points. Players are taught, for example, to adjust their strings or tie their laces before the next point. It clears the mind and keeps you in the present instead of worrying about the last bad shot. Is that really what Nick is doing or does he believe that his method actually puts the cue on the shot line without the necessity of a good shot picture? I think if we had a good hour to discuss this with him, he's going to say the shot picture is what really matters. It would be very interesting to probe him over that (well, maybe not to him).
Where am I going wrong on this?