Aiming System

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
For many people the ghost ball system WILL be a limiting system eventually.

Ghost ball is limited in that it relies more on the ability to accurately visualize than some other systems.

The CP to CP system illustrated in the ops video requires less ability to accurately visualize than ghost ball does.

Also if you incorporate the final parallel shift from the cp to cp line to the center of the cb line, then you can maintain your focus on the cp of ob making it seem even more natural.

As many have stated, eventually your mind and muscle memory will just know where to aim, but for difficult cuts, combos, etc..., this type of system can come in REALLY handy.

This explanation is really not an aiming system. It is just an explanation of the principle on how to get the cp's on two spheres.

There are MANY MANY systems that use this principle. Joe Tucker's number system, my rail road track system, and right triangle system, etc...

These type of systems are best for reducing the variables in practice, i.e. you will know that your aim is accurate and most misses will be due to stroke flaws, stance flaws etc...This helps to isolate the problems and eventually leads to better performance.

Jaden
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Ghost ball is limited in that it relies more on the ability to accurately visualize than some other systems.

The CP to CP system illustrated in the ops video requires less ability to accurately visualize than ghost ball does.
I think they all require the same ability to visualize - none is "better" at that than another. But getting into the details of that is better left until this thread is banished to the Magical Aiming forum where the Endless Argument is tolerated.

pj
chgo
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
I disagree...

I think they all require the same ability to visualize - none is "better" at that than another. But getting into the details of that is better left until this thread is banished to the Magical Aiming forum where the Endless Argument is tolerated.

pj
chgo

For someone with good visual spatial skills one might not be better than another to visualize, but for others, one could EASILY be easier to visualize.

Here's an example.

On a big table, long distance, not too straight a shot. You can get closer to the OB to get the line of the OB's path with your cue and then holding the cue on that line, move the cue stick down to where it goes through the center of the CB, now you have the first contact point from up close on BOTH balls.

line up the CPs and parallel shift to center ball, now you can pick a spot on the table on that line much closer to where you are with the visual aid of the cue stick's shaft to aim at, so if you have poorer vision on the longer shots, it's much easier to aim than trying to see what you can't down table by the OB.

That's just one illustration.

Also, lining up cp to cp is much better for combos as it's much more exact than ghost ball.

Visualizing a sphere accurately is much more difficult for most people than visualizing a line accurately, not even mentioning that your cuestick is a line that can be used as a visual aid, where as you have to completely and totally and accurately imagine a ghost ball with no other visual aids.

Jaden
 

Wybrook

A. Wheeler
Silver Member
I'm not really sure people understand how they are aiming in pool and this causes confusion...

Every "aiming system" is flawed horribly once you get beyond basics. Nothing really works consistently as there is no "one" spot to hit the object ball.

To be clearer, say you are shooting at a ball that is at a 45 degree angle and about 6 feet away. You have to adjust for so many variances that "systems" don't hold up. If you use english, the "aiming" spot can vary 2" depending on the speed at which you strike the ball...and yes, this applies to low deflection shafts as well.

Any time you shoot a shot and miss, whether using a system or not, your brain makes little adjustments to help you make the ball.. So the final result is that you make the ball but you don't realize that you are over or under-cutting the ball to adjust for english and speed. (here is where arguments happen because people insist they are going by the system when in fact they are making arbitrary adjustments based on past experiences)

Systems help you determine "approximately" where to strike the ball but don't hold up for half the shots....and for the shots they "work" on, you are probably not actually hitting where your system told you to hit.

I wish there was an easy way to make shots, but in reality, playing long hours is what's going to make you a better player....not systems. The problem is "long hours" doesnt sound very appealing and is hard to sell, while "Systems" are so very easy to sell.
 

Sloppy Pockets

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This system is a more in depth, elaborate explanation as to why the system I have preached forever works. SVB uses this type system.

BTW, I like to think of this as an alignment system as well.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5988W41mgcY

More and more I've been playing around with using the inside of the shaft to align with the contact point on the OB. This method has gotten some nasty negatives here before, but it really opened up a lot of things for me. There are so many shots that simply go perfectly using this method. It's an objective way to aim, but it doesn't work the same way on thin cuts so you need something else.

What I have discovered for myself is that using the side of the shaft even improves my perception of where the ghost ball is. Sometimes my mind gets a little confused (OK... often these days) as to where the GB position is exactly. By lining up with the inside of the shaft pointing directly at the CP on the OB, I can suddenly see the ghost ball position very clearly as well. Since shooting into the GB is how I have played most of my life, I can switch to this way of perceiving the shot, or just continue with aiming directly into the CP with the inside of the shaft.

Some can laugh at this, but it is the most natural feeling way to shoot I have found. Van Boening uses a more complicated aiming method of shaft aiming that supposedly makes all shots, but it is essentially the same idea - aim directly at the CP on the OB and forget about the CP on the other side of the CB. IMO the 1/2 tip alignment offset obtained by using the inside of the shaft instead of the center solves this problem for a large number of shots.
 

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Is the fact that I mentioned there's an aiming sub-forum really bothering you for some reason?
now you see how foolish what you wrote sounds.

I hate when people get so "uptight" about what I post. Wen, wen, wen.
Maybe it time for you to go play in traffic, with your eyes closed.
Yep, that's why I posted that because I just love, the APA league scores posts.

Isn't that why they have an aiming sub-forum for aiming posts. :wink: :wink:
But maybe because it bothers you, if you ask nicely they will change it just so you will stop whining. :wink:

The reason it bothers me is because posters should be able to put a thread where "THEY" want it to be, not where somebody else dictates it "SHOULD" be.

If it was MANDATORY that every post have its OWN forum based upon subject, then we don't need a "MAIN FORUM".

I put threads in the forum with the "audience" I want to address and if I feel a certain forum will reach that audience better, then that is where I put it.

Why is there mention of cues in the MAIN FORUM, when cues have their OWN forum?

Etc....etc...etc....
 

3andstop

Focus
Silver Member
More and more I've been playing around with using the inside of the shaft to align with the contact point on the OB. This method has gotten some nasty negatives here before, but it really opened up a lot of things for me. There are so many shots that simply go perfectly using this method. It's an objective way to aim, but it doesn't work the same way on thin cuts so you need something else.

What I have discovered for myself is that using the side of the shaft even improves my perception of where the ghost ball is. Sometimes my mind gets a little confused (OK... often these days) as to where the GB position is exactly. By lining up with the inside of the shaft pointing directly at the CP on the OB, I can suddenly see the ghost ball position very clearly as well. Since shooting into the GB is how I have played most of my life, I can switch to this way of perceiving the shot, or just continue with aiming directly into the CP with the inside of the shaft.

Some can laugh at this, but it is the most natural feeling way to shoot I have found. Van Boening uses a more complicated aiming method of shaft aiming that supposedly makes all shots, but it is essentially the same idea - aim directly at the CP on the OB and forget about the CP on the other side of the CB. IMO the 1/2 tip alignment offset obtained by using the inside of the shaft instead of the center solves this problem for a large number of shots.

That's good. Ya know we all envision things differently and adapt differently as well. I actually find thin cuts work well with this method. Again, I say that I like to call it an alignment method as well.

Best way I describe it, if you ever noticed Mika coming down on a shot, he seems to kind of physically fall into it, cue stick first from a raised position down. Perhaps on an imaginary line.

I use this imaginary line from CB to OB with the side of the ferrule as I step into the shot, not as exaggerated a motion as Mika, but I think it may be along the same idea of alignment.

Anyway, it's amazing how well extreme inside english works doing this. I play mostly straight pool and one pocket, so wacking a ball with a ton of inside isn't really a very common shot for me, so squirt isn't a big issue shooting those shots softly, and that alignment / aiming ... works great.

It's simple and it works ... differently for everyone I'm sure, but I'm glad it works for me cause I'm not smart enough to pivot, balance on one toe ... center to edge .. or whatever .... LOL
 

NitPicker

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The object of all cue sports is to keep shooting. Thus, control of the cue ball is essential for every game in cue sports. Cueing/stroking, ball pocketing and cue ball position should not be looked at as separate functions. They are intertwined and should be looked at as such. It's all cue ball control...all of it. Master the white...and you've mastered the game...all of them.

If you want to learning to aim and stroke straight...one needs no object balls nor imagine any ghosts. You only need one ball and a cue to master this skill.
 
Last edited:

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
Stationary sport where you aren't reacting to the action but pattern solving to work around obstacles while keeping perfect form and alignment to get through the ball properly and correctly in order to achieve success.

All very valid points, but NOT the answer I was looking for.

Once I divulge it, you'll see the simplicity of the answer.
 

NitPicker

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
IMHO, the cues games and Golf are the 2 MOST difficult 'single person' sports to play!

Can someone tell me, "What is the one common denominator BOTH these sports have, that makes them so difficult!"

I'll check on replies In a couple of hours.

Both are extremely prone to error. Errors are only caused by the person executing play...not the opponent.
 

Tramp Steamer

One Pocket enthusiast.
Silver Member
IMHO, the cues games and Golf are the 2 MOST difficult 'single person' sports to play!

Can someone tell me, "What is the one common denominator BOTH these sports have, that makes them so difficult!"

I'll check on replies In a couple of hours.

I responded to the wrong person the first time so here goes again.
The answer is, in golf, you play the course, going out and coming in.. In pool, you play the table that is presented to you. :)
 

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
The ONE common denominator both Golf and the Cue games have is, "They are the ONLY 2 games where the ball is sitting still, and the player propels it with a stick!"

The other games like, Tennis, baseball, table tennis are ALL, 'reactionary games!'
 

Tramp Steamer

One Pocket enthusiast.
Silver Member
The ONE common denominator both Golf and the Cue games have is, "They are the ONLY 2 games where the ball is sitting still, and the player propels it with a stick!"

The other games like, Tennis, baseball, table tennis are ALL, 'reactionary
games!'

Aw gee, Mr. 3. As if nobody even knew that. I had hoped you'd have been a little more existential with your Q&A.
 

KRJ

Support UKRAINE
Silver Member
IMHO, the cues games and Golf are the 2 MOST difficult 'single person' sports to play!

Can someone tell me, "What is the one common denominator BOTH these sports have, that makes them so difficult!"

I'll check on replies In a couple of hours.

I'm going to disagree with you Bill. Golf and cue sports are not even close to being the most difficult "single" sports to play. The fact that the ball is NOT moving makes the game a tad easier.

Tennis beats them both, just due to the athleticism required to play. Try returning a 100 plus MPH tennis serve, it would take you a decade to even walk onto the field with a pro. Not to mention the stamina required to play, the hand eye coordination or the power needed to hit a ball hard enough to get by your opponent.

That's the first sport that comes to mind, I really don't want to hurt my head and think of the many others. I love pool, but it does not come close to skill wise to other sports that I like, and are much more difficult to master.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
not necessarily...

I'm not really sure people understand how they are aiming in pool and this causes confusion...

Every "aiming system" is flawed horribly once you get beyond basics. Nothing really works consistently as there is no "one" spot to hit the object ball.

To be clearer, say you are shooting at a ball that is at a 45 degree angle and about 6 feet away. You have to adjust for so many variances that "systems" don't hold up. If you use english, the "aiming" spot can vary 2" depending on the speed at which you strike the ball...and yes, this applies to low deflection shafts as well.

Any time you shoot a shot and miss, whether using a system or not, your brain makes little adjustments to help you make the ball.. So the final result is that you make the ball but you don't realize that you are over or under-cutting the ball to adjust for english and speed. (here is where arguments happen because people insist they are going by the system when in fact they are making arbitrary adjustments based on past experiences)

Systems help you determine "approximately" where to strike the ball but don't hold up for half the shots....and for the shots they "work" on, you are probably not actually hitting where your system told you to hit.

I wish there was an easy way to make shots, but in reality, playing long hours is what's going to make you a better player....not systems. The problem is "long hours" doesnt sound very appealing and is hard to sell, while "Systems" are so very easy to sell.

I can and have proved that this just isn't true in the vast majority of circumstances (meaning that systems require large amounts of adjustment isn't true).

For most both long hours of practice AND systems are necessary to get to their highest level of pool.

You aren't going to be able to successfully use most systems without putting in long hours of practice with them, but to say that systems require large amounts of adjustment probably means you don't have enough experience with the right systems for you.

Of course this is going to turn into a feel versus system and what constitutes a system blah blah blah... That's not what it should be though.

For one, Any feel player talking down about systems should be dismissed as biased instantly. Or rather, any feel player who states that systems don't or can't work, should be dismissed immediately.

A feel player who states that using systems doesn't work for them and suggesting others should rely more on feel can be listened to if someone chooses to, but for most people trying to get better, quicker, systems are the best way to do so.

As I stated, systems are a good way to better isolate mechanics flaws and should be used to work more towards developing proper technique, feel and pre shot routines, IMO.

That's not to say that systems can't or shouldn't be used in competition or regular play though.

Jaden
 

mr3cushion

Regestered User
Silver Member
Aw gee, Mr. 3. As if nobody even knew that. I had hoped you'd have been a little more existential with your Q&A.

Then why didn't that answer come to mind for YOU?

Just as in the way TOP players make the game looks so easy, 'Simplicity' is the key based on sound fundamentals and proper knowledge!
 
Top