Threads on aiming systems tend to generate a lot of heat, but not much light. Proponents and teachers of aiming systems can't always explain them in terms that make sense from strictly geometric or engineering points of view, but point out that the systems "work" for many, many players. Some of those opposed to aiming systems, let's call them "feel" players, insist that regardless of what system you are using to aim, you are always making unconscious adjustments to either side of the few fixed "aim points," and so you are really aiming by feel or estimation after all. There are surely valid points to be made for both sides of this issue - there seems to be no doubt that the aiming systems have improved the ball pocketing ability of many, many students. On the other hand, there is equally little doubt that the physical realities of pool tables and pool balls do not allow all pool shots to be made by using only a small number of contact points on the OB. Reading through some of the recent posts on this topic, it seems to me that the level of miscommunication which occurs must be due, at least in part, to the emotional involvement of the posters. Some of them angry, some defensive, and some with hard to label irrationalities (grin here). I truly have no stake in either side of the argument, but have found myself thinking about the issues involved. (I'm retired, so I can afford to "waste" a few hours here and there.) Let me share two thoughts I have on the topic.
First, from my long career in academic psychology, I am confident that human beings often are unaware of significant aspects of their behavior. With reference to the aiming issues, what I mean is that while a player may say that they lining balls up this way or using their cue tip to aim that way or sighting down their shaft to aim in some other way, they may have little or no idea about what information (including both visual and proprioceptive feedback) their brains are actually using to pocket a ball. For example, I know of a strong player who steadfastly denies that English causes the OB to throw one way or the other. He is convinced that he hits the OB in exactly the same spot to pocket it regardless of the English he applies to the cue ball. Now we know that the physics of throw demands slightly different contact points to pocket a ball depending on side spin applied to the cue ball, so this strong player may believe he is always hitting the same contact point, but he must be unconsciously correcting for throw nonetheless. Now do you see the futility of arguing with him? To argue with him about this would be like saying, "You are unconsciously correcting for throw." To which he might reply, "No I?m not! I?m not correcting at all." "But your correction is UNCONSCIOUS," I reply. "I'm aware of no such correction," he says. "Of course you aren't. It is UNCONSCIOUS," I scream. And so forth.
Second, I believe part of the reason for the never ending discussions of ?aiming? is an inherent fallacy in the term "aiming" as it applies to pool. When you aim a pistol, there is a perfectly clear, unambiguous VISUAL IMAGE you are striving to achieve. Here's a short description of that image:
The front sight is aligned in the notch of the rear sight such that the top of the front sight is level with the top of the rear sight. The gap between the sides of the front sight and the left and right sides of the rear sight notch are equal. When all set, maintain your focus on the front sight and bring your weapon to bear on the target. You should see the sharply focused front sight touching the bottom of the blurry, unfocused bullseye.
There is no equivalent visual image to be achieved on the pool table. "Aiming" in pool is a combination of visual and proprioceptive (bodily) information and therefore very difficult to reduce to a simple, verbal description. But attempts to do so, such as the various aiming systems in pool, may well give the player confidence that he is successfully preparing to pocket a ball, and we all know how powerful confidence can be on the pool table.
In no way do I believe I have somehow settled the debate over aiming systems by posting these thoughts. I simply wanted to share them with you.
First, from my long career in academic psychology, I am confident that human beings often are unaware of significant aspects of their behavior. With reference to the aiming issues, what I mean is that while a player may say that they lining balls up this way or using their cue tip to aim that way or sighting down their shaft to aim in some other way, they may have little or no idea about what information (including both visual and proprioceptive feedback) their brains are actually using to pocket a ball. For example, I know of a strong player who steadfastly denies that English causes the OB to throw one way or the other. He is convinced that he hits the OB in exactly the same spot to pocket it regardless of the English he applies to the cue ball. Now we know that the physics of throw demands slightly different contact points to pocket a ball depending on side spin applied to the cue ball, so this strong player may believe he is always hitting the same contact point, but he must be unconsciously correcting for throw nonetheless. Now do you see the futility of arguing with him? To argue with him about this would be like saying, "You are unconsciously correcting for throw." To which he might reply, "No I?m not! I?m not correcting at all." "But your correction is UNCONSCIOUS," I reply. "I'm aware of no such correction," he says. "Of course you aren't. It is UNCONSCIOUS," I scream. And so forth.
Second, I believe part of the reason for the never ending discussions of ?aiming? is an inherent fallacy in the term "aiming" as it applies to pool. When you aim a pistol, there is a perfectly clear, unambiguous VISUAL IMAGE you are striving to achieve. Here's a short description of that image:
The front sight is aligned in the notch of the rear sight such that the top of the front sight is level with the top of the rear sight. The gap between the sides of the front sight and the left and right sides of the rear sight notch are equal. When all set, maintain your focus on the front sight and bring your weapon to bear on the target. You should see the sharply focused front sight touching the bottom of the blurry, unfocused bullseye.
There is no equivalent visual image to be achieved on the pool table. "Aiming" in pool is a combination of visual and proprioceptive (bodily) information and therefore very difficult to reduce to a simple, verbal description. But attempts to do so, such as the various aiming systems in pool, may well give the player confidence that he is successfully preparing to pocket a ball, and we all know how powerful confidence can be on the pool table.
In no way do I believe I have somehow settled the debate over aiming systems by posting these thoughts. I simply wanted to share them with you.
Last edited:
Or was the answer that no shots fall in that area. 
