First, let me state that I don't really buy into any of these "aiming systems" as being critical parts of playing better pool.That's because you don't understand any of them to the point of being able to use them correctly.
I keep hearing that throughout the years. "You don't understand" ..."If you did, you wouldn't say what you say" ...
Well, I like to think that I am of average to above average intelligence. At least the test scores say so
I was exceptional at geometry, and definitely very good at other mathematics. I think I'm capable enough of understanding a system. What I see presented as aiming systems, doesn't represent any kind of system that I can discern, at least as they are advertised to be.
That said, any system that is so difficult to understand, or better yet, so difficult to DESCRIBE ..is in my opinion, NO SYSTEM at all. *cough* CTE *cough*
If it is real, if it does something true, it should be reasonably describable. Pool is a game/sport. Because of that, there is a practical side to it. A system that is wildly complex to describe, to the point of being ambiguous in many (most) ways isn't exactly practical for use in a game scenario.
It's like that theory, the simplest solution - is the best solution.
Descibe it, yes, draw it, no.
UH OH SPAGHETTI O'S!
Should we even take a system seriously that cannot be drawn out? What system can be described, but not drawn? That just begs ambiguity and vagueness to rear their ugly faces into the equation.
Here's a system that works....mirroring short kicks off one rail with the OB close to the rail. That works. That can be drawn out.
How many tens of thousands of people have been playing pool for many years and still can't run out very often because they miss the ball?? Because they don't really know how to aim.
Wrong. Most probably know how to aim fairly well. They miss because they have a poor stroke.
STROKE STROKE STROKE. People need to burn that in their brain. Look, I don't want to get into a which came first, the chicken or the egg. I never said aim isn't important. Aim and stroke go together. I merely state that aiming is something that is easier to learn, and learn fairly well EARLY on in one's pool career. It is stroke that never comes around for most players, because that takes some serious work.
Aiming is the easy part. The "aiming system" peddlers are the equivalent of those people selling diet pills. Oh no, it's not exercise and eating right that will do it. Take a pill instead!
It's like saying it's not your stroke's fault, you didn't know how to aim! That's my problem with this whole subject. It very much is their stroke that is at fault. Yet, aiming is what is "picked on" and focused on. Why? I think people can profit from aim, but not stroke. Stroke takes work. Stroke doesn't depend on occult, vague, mysterious and ambiguous "systems" to describe it. It's right there. You can SEE it with your eye balls. Is the cue being moved perfectly straight? Yes or no? If no, stroke flaw. For this reason, there's no system to it. The mechanics are plain and simple. Easy to understand. There for all to see. An intermediate player can fully understand, as well as an instructor what goes into a good stance and stroke from the book knowledge. There is nothing secret or special.
Completely objective.
The snooker world is much more honest and down to Earth about all this.
I don't believe that any pro utilizes an aiming system on every shot. I also don't believe that they have mastered whatever aiming system it is to such a high level that it is automatic for them.You are free to believe whatever you want to. That doesn't make it correct though. And, anyone that can repeatedly pocket balls is using SOME kind of system. They aren't just guessing.
Why do you make the assumption that the repeated pocketing of balls must be some kind of system? Why can't the repeated pocketing of balls result from visual and muscle memory leading to executing the shot the same way?
Why do you make the assumption that not using an aiming system is "guessing" ?
Allow me to use a metaphorical example from the shooting sports. Firearms have sights on them. If you use those, you're aiming using the aiming system of the firearm. It's known where the shot is going to go by the shooter based on the alignment of the sights.
However, some people can do what's known as "point shooting" where they do not use the sights, they point their arm at the target, pull the trigger and hit. They are not sighting it directly with their eyes, or using the sighting of the firearm. They are utilizing visual, mental and physical memory and perception skills. They've done it an awful lot and know where it hits when they do it that way. They are NOT GUESSING as you would claim they would be doing, because they aren't "aiming" with the sights (system).
Speaking of firearms....firearms as I said have sights or some even have scopes. This completely takes aiming or knowing the point of aim out of the equation entirely. It would be the equivalent of having a laser beam come out of somewhere and place a dot on the object ball where you need to aim to, which also compensates for the curvature of the balls. All that said, shooters miss all the time. WHY??? Trigger control, grip, stance, hold etcetera. All the same things that goes into pool, applies there. The slightest movement or flaw, and the shot gets pulled. Even with the point of aim clearly defined (the bullseye) and the firearm itself having a built-in sighting system!
What so much over-emphasis on these aiming systems does is ignore what is without question far more important factors. And that is - accurate CUING among other things. In other words, having a smooth, straight and CONSISTENT stroke. Being able to hit the cueball exactly where you want with the tip of your cue.Of course they ignore it. Aiming threads are about AIMING. Not fundamentals. A whole different part of the game. You want to talk about fundamentals, then talk about that. But, to "knock" aiming threads because they only talk about aiming?? Come on, you have to admit that is over the top.
I don't think I'm being over the top. I've read these aiming threads since the days of R.S.B. and A.S.P ....I read a lot of players portray this as the holy grail of their game. Or seek it out as the thing that will make them play great.
See above statements. And, yes, much has to be learned through experience. No one ever said otherwise. But, don't ignore the things that can be taught so your learning curve is shortened.
I agree, that's why I painfully read the several hundred threads on aiming systems, some of which were over 60 pages long on this very board. My attitude is, it never hurts to know something extra. Unfortunately, after many, many years...I cannot determine certain systems as being what they claim to be. If I can't do that, then they must not be real systems. Because I'm not about to declare myself stupid or incapable of learning, especially when there are several very knowledgeable and very bright minds on this very board who cannot make any sense of these systems or cannot find a conclusive and definitive way of describing them, or why/how they actually work. It's not just me.
I'm more inclined to assume that the proponents of the aiming systems are out to sell something, and the students of such systems putting forth all these wonderful and emphatic testimonials are experiencing the PLACEBO EFFECT.
Sorry if that is condescending.
Very misleading statements. You already have your aim spot picked out by doing that. The test is pure fundamentals, not aiming. Aiming to a spot on the rail, anyone can do that. Aiming to pocket a ball is a whole different matter.
WHY? What difference is there between a point on a ball or on a rail? Is not the cueball round for both of those targets?
Ah ha....even when you shoot the drill I described, you have to aim. How do you do that? How does CTE for example work for aiming at spots on the rail?
WHY WHY WHY is aiming at balls treated differently? The OB and CB have two curved surfaces. But when dealing with a point on one of them (OB), only one curved surface needs to be compensated for....agreed?
How about a rail? The rail is straight. If you aim for a point on the rail at an angle, the ball will hit slightly before it, due to the curvature of the ball. HOW DOES ONE COMPENSATE FOR THAT? Do we need CTE for hitting rails?
That alone blows apart all these aiming systems.
