A long comment on "aiming systems" ...

[duckie]

I understand that some people have difficulty. Perhaps they aren't as good visually. Speaking of that, I think ghost-ball system is perhaps the worst of the worst. Most difficult to use. Most difficult to accurately visualize, but the easiest to generally visual. There's a difference! Yet, ghost-ball might be the only system in existence that actually provides for a 100% definitive point of aim. Assuming you can visualize a ball where it doesn't exist. I think that if you can visualize that well enough to actually work, then you have the visual/mental perception skills to just use point of contact and be done with it.

This is the only part that kinda cringe a bit in reading, mostly worst of the worst and most difficult, but I understand why some feel this way.

In my use of ghost ball, I do not try yo visualize a "ghost ball" next to the OB where it needs to be to make the OB go where you want. I also do not use the OB contact point in the same manner as most.

Look at the drawing in my avatar. You'll notice a few new terms used: contact patch-where the ball meets the table
direction of travel-the path the balls will take when moved and the path the cue moves
aiming point arc-the arc around the OB the ghost ball will take when moved around the OB

The end point of the OB direction of travel line ends, in this case, let's use the center of the pocket.

The start point is not the OB contact patch, but the ghost ball contact patch. The OB contact patch is the pivot point for any change needed in the OB direction of travel.

Its important to note the the line between the OB contact patch and the ghost ball contact patch is the same distance no matter where the ghost ball is located on the OB.

If the distance to the pocket is the same, then moving the ghost ball around the OB will result in the OB direction of travel line end point to move the same amount.

As the distance from the pocket to the OB increases, the ghost ball needs to be moved around the OB less and less in order the change where the OB directional of travel line end point was to where you want it.

In other words, shots where the OB is far from a pocket has to be hit more accurately then one that is 3 inches from the pocket.

Also since the OB is closer to the pocket, you have a bigger impact zone to use in order to cheat the pocket easier than from far away where the impact zone is smaller. Impact zone is another subject.

This is how I use ghost ball to help me find the spot on the table to put the CB to make the OB go where I want.

Also, by putting the CB on proper spot, it hits the OB in the proper contact point, since the OB contact point and the ghost ball contact patch are both on the OB direction of travel line.

These concepts apply to all shots regardless of what "aiming system" is used. Further more, they work on all shots unlike other systems.

Now, the cue ball placement method I use is based on the Arrow by Babe Cranfield. The arrow is something you can make place on the table such that that point of the arrow is where the ghost ball contact patch would be to make the OB go where you want.

The arrow has the advantage over the BAT in that is can remain on the table before, during and after the shot. So, if you miss, you can see how much, which side. Then using the concepts above, you can adjust as needed with less guess work.

With the arrow in the proper place to make the shot, all you do is roll the CB such that the the CB direction of travel line intersects with the the point on the arrow, which is in reality the start point for the direction the OB will go.

The arrow can be used not matter what "aiming system" is used. You at least will have a real world point to see to hit. This is called training.

From the drawing, hopefully it is apparent why hitting center ball is so important. When you cue center ball, the cue's direction of travel line and the CB direction of travel are on the same line. Meaning all you have to do is stroke through the CB to the point of where the arrow would be if you have been training using it.

Also, there is needed side to side movement of the eye since your target is straight ahead of you.

Anyway, if this methodology was good enough for Babe Cranfield, it's good enough for me.

Oh, the arrow can be used to train you in the use of caroms and combos.

Wonder how many people will try it......or rather would prefer to spend money DVD, instructors instead of table time using something that really will help shorten some ones learning curve.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

On that note.

How many times has someone bought a brand new custom cue that they really really wanted, and upon first hitting balls with it, they stroke better, play better position, pocket more balls, and felt confident as if the new cue has unlocked some hidden potential in their game.
They feel as if they are playing better as a result, and in a lot of cases, they are.

And of course, this disappears a couple of days later, when they go right back to miscuing on their draw shots, playing sub par position, and missing shots in general.

Everyone who has played pool for a long time, has probably experienced this, or witnessed this phenomenon.

I'm not going to get into the whole aiming argument cause i know people who successfully use aiming systems, and people who have had zero success with aiming systems.

But the placebo effect is very real. Especially for people that have certain expectations.

That I can agree with. The effect works on many, but it's not the *system's* claims, it's the effect. By the way, good bringing up the custom cue placebo effect. See my other thread "Custom Cue Mythology" ...that really ruffled some feathers.

 

[JB Cases]

Ghosts don't show up on camera, John.

They do terrify many asians, however, but, not having been to China, I'm not sure what they do to the Chinese. I'll have to ask my Chinese buddy and use google...

From your response, you're clearly a man of science, so it puzzles me that you won't do a simple video of you playing pool. You do a lot of talking about aiming systems, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a bit of tangible proof before making my mind up on the subject. I'm extremely open minded on it btw, but I've not seen anything so far that can be proven to be different than any other way of playing.

Your refusal (and attack) makes me think of this:

http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html

You see there is one difference. An aiming system is easy to prove whether it works or not. There is a simple test. Did the ball go in or not. All you need to prove it is contained on the table.

So do it like James Randi and put up a sizable amount of money and your criteria and see if anyone can prove the accuracy of their aiming system.

How much are you willing to bet? I am sure I can find plenty of people to take hundreds of test shots for as little as $10,000.

 

[JB Cases]

I'm just curious and I don't speak for John but if John makes a full video of playing the ghost racing to 7, will you do the same and post yours?

There are only a few people who get to see mine Joey. Nice try but I am keeping my speed to myself until I get a chance to play you another round of one-hole and get my lunch money back.



Don'tcha know that YouTube is the new way to hustle on the net. Wait until you see my new vids with my Travis Trotter Rocks shirt on.

 

[scrappy]

we are all individuals, if something works for you then great

 

[TheThaiger]

I'm just curious and I don't speak for John but if John makes a full video of playing the ghost racing to 7, will you do the same and post yours?

I'm not interested in a pissing contest. Nor do I have video equipment. And I don't boast about how well i play on here.

I'm just interested in how he actually plays, because, for all his videos, I still don't know how good he can play the game. Someone else who advocates aiming systems stepped up and showed us his form: why shouldn't the rest of you?

 

[JB Cases]

I'm not interested in a pissing contest. Nor do I have video equipment. And I don't boast about how well i play on here.

I'm just interested in how he actually plays, because, for all his videos, I still don't know how good he can play the game. Someone else who advocates aiming systems stepped up and showed us his form: why shouldn't the rest of you?

I am terrible. In fact I think most of the players on here who advocate aiming systems would rather I don't make any videos at all.

I am probably your best weapon against aiming systems. Just post links to my videos and ask people if they really want to play as badly as I do.

 

[TheThaiger]

I have video of myself playing that I could upload right now. But it wouldn't prove anything to you that will change your mind. What you don't understand is that I don't care if you change your mind.

What you think of aiming systems means nothing to me. You are simply conversation fodder to keep the discussion going. For that I thank you. Because without it the discussions die off.

How do I know? I started a group to discuss the aiming methods and it died soon afterward. People want to be here where the audience is.

Do this for an experiment if you don't believe me.

Next time there is an aiming thread you and all the naysayers stay out of it. Watch it die quickly. You guys keep it alive just as yeasayers keep this one alive.

I already know that no matter how good I play it won't change your stance. If I play bad you say that the system does not work and if I play great then you say it's because of other factors. So your goal is not to find common ground, not to attempt to understand. Your goal is simply to pick at me and others who like these systems for your own entertainment.

As Lou said and I paraphrase, 'if Ronnie turned up at your local and told you aiming systems were the best thing ever you'd hand him a pint and say get off the drugs Ronnie.' So with that premise nothing I say or do will have the least effect on your opinion.

We cannot find common ground until you share your secrets, or at least demonstrate them. As I said, I'm entirely open minded on the issue. Your refusal to demonstrate you can actually play only creates the suspicion you can not.

Why don't you prove it and shut us naysayers (sic) up?

 

[TheThaiger]

I am terrible. In fact I think most of the players on here who advocate aiming systems would rather I don't make any videos at all.

I am probably your best weapon against aiming systems. Just post links to my videos and ask people if they really want to play as badly as I do.

It's undeniable you cue terribly, but it doesn't necessarily follow you play terribly - as I've found to my cost on many occasions.

Don't be shy now!

 

[JB Cases]

We cannot find common ground until you share your secrets, or at least demonstrate them. As I said, I'm entirely open minded on the issue. Your refusal to demonstrate you can actually play only creates the suspicion you can not.

Why don't you prove it and shut us naysayers (sic) up?

Whether I can play or not has no bearing on whether the system works or not.

That's like asking a doctor to prove a scalpel is sharp by performing a surgery.

I have no secrets. I can't play at all. I can't run three balls in a row. Any shots you see me make on the all the videos I have done are all lucky flukes.

 

[TheThaiger]

You see there is one difference. An aiming system is easy to prove whether it works or not. There is a simple test. Did the ball go in or not. All you need to prove it is contained on the table.

So do it like James Randi and put up a sizable amount of money and your criteria and see if anyone can prove the accuracy of their aiming system.

How much are you willing to bet? I am sure I can find plenty of people to take hundreds of test shots for as little as $10,000.

But therein lies the problem: all i see is test shots. Where's da beef?

 

[TheThaiger]

That's like asking a doctor to prove a scalpel is sharp by performing a surgery.

It is?

 

[Cornerman]

I can't believe someone dragged up this 10 year old thread.

 

[JB Cases]

But therein lies the problem: all i see is test shots. Where's da beef?

No beef. It's all smoke and mirrors. Those test shots you see were carefully selected and I practiced them about four hundred times each off-camera. Had the balls been moved an inch in any direction then I would have missed horribly.

 

[JB Cases]

I can't believe someone dragged up this 10 year old thread.

Fred are you going to be at SBE?

 

[Grilled Cheese]

PS, for all you aiming system fanatics....you ought to see how Snooker is. In Snooker, there is much, much more emphasis on body, arm, and stroke mechanics (fundamentals), than "aiming systems" or cue technology.

So?? What's your point? That they don't talk about aiming at all, or that they don't like to talk about it as much as other things?? Since when was snooker forums the standard by which other forums should abide by? Maybe you should stick to their forums if this one causes you so much angst?

The point is that, in their world - there seems to be a greater percentage of attention given to stroke, mechanics and fundamentals than "aiming systems" ..they've got aiming systems too. They just don't seem so religious and fanatical about them.


Here's probably why....


If you've played on a genuine 12 foot snooker table (I have), it becomes obvious. But I'll spell it out. Take a straight in shot. A straight in shot doesn't' require any kind of compensation for the curvature of the balls. The contact point ought to be very clear and obvious. There's a few different ways to line that shot up. This is easy to miss in snooker. Even in pool. But snooker, due to the nature of the game, more quickly brings people to the conclusion that THEIR STROKE SUCKS. Sure, they may have aiming flaws. I never said aiming isn't part of the equation. It is just as important as anything else as a prerequisite for great play. Without aim, there's nothing else. It's mandatory. However, aim is a visual and mental understanding. That is easier to learn and acquire, because unlike stroke, it doesn't require nearly as much repetition to train the body. Stroke also requires mental understanding, but there's also the physical component of controlling one's body.



Think of it this way....



Who would be the better player?????



Player 1:


Player 1 has absolute perfect aim. Never lines up wrong, always knows the exact contact point or line of aim. However, Player 1 has a mediocre stroke, doesn't always hit the CB correctly.


Player 2:


Player 2 has an absolutely perfect stroke. It is as straight as if it were a mechanical device. Always hits the cueball where intended. However, Player 2 has mediocre aiming skills. Can aim well, but is not perfect all the time.




I contend that player 2 would CRUSH player 1 in the long run if not immediately. Player 2 will occasionally miss due to an aiming flaw. But Player 2's knowledge of aiming is sufficient for the vast majority of shots. Sufficient enough to pocket balls and get good shape. Since even intermediate players have sufficient aiming skills and knowledge for the vast majority of shots.

Player 1, as great as their aim may be, is likely to MISS ANY SHOT AT ANY TIME due to the mediocre stroke. Player 1 has no consistency in hitting the cueball. That introduces uncertainty in ALL SHOTS, ALL the TIME. Player 1 might know exactly how to aim every single time, but player 1 is no better than a novice with equivalent stroke/mechanics because either has the same odds or ability of cuing the CB correctly.



Bottom line, if you can't deliver the ball to where you're aiming - what good was the great aim? Conversely, the aiming fanatics say what good is a great stroke without direction (aim)?


To that I say, and I contend, that a lot of players develop pretty decent aiming skills. Enough to be able to play great pool. Maybe not pro, but their aim is good enough to make them real good shooters..pretty close to pro I would say. What's holding them back is stroke. Earning a great stroke = lots of time and hard work.

That said, more attention ought to be spent on stroke. Not on finding magic cure, get rich quick, diet pill type solutions. The aiming zealots absolutely do claim, whether implied or suggested, that what is holding people back is their inability to aim shots. Please do not say that isn't true or that "no one says that" ...


The last and final touches on aim, that is, perfecting aim to reach pro level will occur the same way as stroke - with practice and training to condition/program the visual and mental memory and perception part of a player's game. By all means, utilize an aiming system. Good to have more weapons in your arsenal. More tools at your disposal. Knowledge is never a bad thing. But when tackling a problem (in this case, the development of a player's game), it's wise to address and achieve the biggest and more important goals. To take on and master that which will reward or pay back the player the most. And again, that doesn't mean never learn to aim perfectly. As I stated, you need it all to have a complete game and be a "pro" ...



That was the point of the thread. (Trying to get the thread back on track).

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

I have video of myself playing that I could upload right now. But it wouldn't prove anything to you that will change your mind. What you don't understand is that I don't care if you change your mind.

Since you spend most of your free time on AZB, it's pretty obvious that you're just a duffer who likes to talk bombastically about how good you are. So you can pot a few balls for your aiming videos. Big deal. Let's see you run some racks...or not. It takes more than just aiming to make one a complete player.

What I find fascinating is why you're trying so hard to train wreck this thread, just like you've done with so many other threads. Your OCD can take credit for your 22 mostly trivial postings to this thread and your 12,000+ rambling postings to AZB. :boring: Get some help for your OCD and you'll wonder why you've wasted so much precious time posting on AZB.

 

[3RAILKICK]

I can't believe someone dragged up this 10 year old thread.

Fred-that's

Sad?

True

Funny

During 20 years of marriage, my ex and I had the same unresolved arguements disguised as different topics---kind of similar. Neither of us ever budged-we divorced to avoid any more arguing.

Having to be right can impede the issue discussion.

 

[Cornerman]

Fred are you going to be at SBE?

It doesn't look good John. I'm about 5% chance right now.

 

[JB Cases]

Since you spend most of your free time on AZB, it's pretty obvious that you're just a duffer who likes to talk bombastically about how good you are. So you can pot a few balls for your aiming videos. Big deal. Let's see you run some racks...or not. It takes more than just aiming to make one a complete player.

What I find fascinating is why you're trying so hard to train wreck this thread, just like you've done with so many other threads. Your OCD can take credit for your 22 mostly trivial postings to this thread and your 12,000+ rambling postings to AZB. :boring: Get some help for your OCD and you'll wonder why you've wasted so much precious time posting on AZB.

I only skimmed through the thread but I still didn't see one single post by you that had any useful content for or against.

Did you make one finally?

If so could you please post a link to it. I am dying to set off the fireworks I bought in anticipation of the day you say anything that is on topic in one of these aiming threads.