From 3:14 to 3:23 of your cte with english video using your own words.."ok, cte come on down bring it in to center there you are right there on the ghost ball line" You just defined cte as that.
A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds
- Thread starter JC
- Start date
For the record, I was simply agreeing that weak fundamentals should be a priority, rather than aiming systems. A player can develop his or her own form or style and be completely unorthodox when compared to traditional fundamentals. It's consistency that matters, not one's specific form.
I played a guy years ago down in South Carolina who held the butt of his cue with a curled wrist that almost touched his armpit. He asked if I wanted to play some $20 9ball. I had only watched him shoot a couple of shots, and based on his funky stroke I thought 'hell yes I wanna play'. He played lights out 9ball, which knocked me out of stroke real quick, got me down 6 or 7 games. I didn't expect he'd be that good. After the initital shellshock and realizing how stupid it was to judge skill based on form, I was able to get my head right and ended winning $200 over the next 5 or 6 hours.
As far as a weak fundamental player getting benefits from an aiming method, I absolutely agree, as long as the method doesn't require trial and error. In other words, if the player knows exactly where to aim on a given practice shot, like a halfball shot, then that aiming method can actually help the player develop a more consistent stroke due to the feedback received from making or missing the shot multiple times. Every miss can be attributed to flaws in stroke mechanics or fundamentals, since the aiming portion of the shot is a known variable. With a lot of traditional aiming methods there is no "known" line of aim until you've hit thousands of balls with a consistent enough stroke to actually develop good aiming skills.
So, I agree with you. But I also agree with what JC is talking about when it comes to players looking at aiming systems as if they will offset flawed and inconsistent mechanics.
The steps of aiming/shooting:
1. While standing up, select a shotline
2. Getting your cue and body on that shotline
3. Keeping everything on that line until the shot is completed
Most videos and posts about aiming focus on the first step and that is often defined as "aiming" in pool. That is all well and good, but usually for an experienced player, that is not a problem at all. The aiming is usually crystal clear from up above, but gets more difficult in step two. In step two you have to get down on the line you saw and trust it. If you rely on imaginary lines/balls then you also have to reproduce them accurately. That is usually much harder, because not only are there moving parts, but the perspective is much different, so it's hard to trust what you saw previously.
To the credit of manual pivot aiming system, they adress this problem. They give you a detailed list of instructions on how, at the very least, to get your cue on the shooting line in the shooting position. Ghost ball and other such traditional aiming systems usually give only vague instructions, that are supposed to be customized to the shooter. If this is poorly done, then a shooter may actually benefit from pivot aiming.
Sadly, pivot aiming kind of suck at step 3, especially systems where the cue pivots in both directions, depending on the shot. It's really hard to get good, consistent body alignment when the movement is different every time. There are one direction pivot systems, but even they need some variation in amount of pivot usually, so they also are problematic. If you observe people demonstrating manual pivot systems they often jerk their strokes. They realize that they're on the right line and try to pull the trigger before they drift off it. It's not a good way to play, honestly.
I find it a useful diagnostic to shoot the stroke with my eyes closed (and a camera recording). It is also very enlightening to watch others do that. It seems a large part of the problem for many shooters is keeping unintended spin off the cueball. The worst players can hardly hit the cue ball with their eyes closed. To me it shows that step 2 and especially 3 are the hardest part of pool, and deserving of more attention than step 1. If you need your eyes open to strike the cueball halfway decently, then step 2 and especially 3 have been failed in spectacular fashion. It's very rare to see a cueball, perfectly struck without sidespin, missing the target in this test unless it's a very high difficulty shot (razor cut from a distance). To me that shows that usually it's not selecting the line while standing up that is the problem.
1. While standing up, select a shotline
2. Getting your cue and body on that shotline
3. Keeping everything on that line until the shot is completed
Most videos and posts about aiming focus on the first step and that is often defined as "aiming" in pool. That is all well and good, but usually for an experienced player, that is not a problem at all. The aiming is usually crystal clear from up above, but gets more difficult in step two. In step two you have to get down on the line you saw and trust it. If you rely on imaginary lines/balls then you also have to reproduce them accurately. That is usually much harder, because not only are there moving parts, but the perspective is much different, so it's hard to trust what you saw previously.
To the credit of manual pivot aiming system, they adress this problem. They give you a detailed list of instructions on how, at the very least, to get your cue on the shooting line in the shooting position. Ghost ball and other such traditional aiming systems usually give only vague instructions, that are supposed to be customized to the shooter. If this is poorly done, then a shooter may actually benefit from pivot aiming.
Sadly, pivot aiming kind of suck at step 3, especially systems where the cue pivots in both directions, depending on the shot. It's really hard to get good, consistent body alignment when the movement is different every time. There are one direction pivot systems, but even they need some variation in amount of pivot usually, so they also are problematic. If you observe people demonstrating manual pivot systems they often jerk their strokes. They realize that they're on the right line and try to pull the trigger before they drift off it. It's not a good way to play, honestly.
I find it a useful diagnostic to shoot the stroke with my eyes closed (and a camera recording). It is also very enlightening to watch others do that. It seems a large part of the problem for many shooters is keeping unintended spin off the cueball. The worst players can hardly hit the cue ball with their eyes closed. To me it shows that step 2 and especially 3 are the hardest part of pool, and deserving of more attention than step 1. If you need your eyes open to strike the cueball halfway decently, then step 2 and especially 3 have been failed in spectacular fashion. It's very rare to see a cueball, perfectly struck without sidespin, missing the target in this test unless it's a very high difficulty shot (razor cut from a distance). To me that shows that usually it's not selecting the line while standing up that is the problem.
Last edited:
Player hierarchy, blind shooting, random shots with some difficulty to them. Not ducks:
1. Final stroke with eyes closed, can't hit cueball reliably, without miscueing or badly missing. (Beginner)
2. Final stroke with eyes closed, makes the ball more than not (intermediate beginner)
3. Final stroke with eyes closed, makes the ball about equally as well as with eyes open, but maybe less accurate control (intermediate)
4. Final stroke with eyes closed, same as above, but with consistent cueball control. Can take the cue out of the v of the bridge and put it back with eyes still closed and still make the shot (advanced)
5. Eyes closed after step in, going down and stroking with eyes closed the whole time, still making most shots (pro level). Never seen this myself, but it's claimed some snooker pros can do this. I sure can't. With practise I can make one particular shot after some trial and error, but on every shot is at an entirely different level from where I am currently. I think this shows the degree of consistency in setup required at the highest level, even though the feat itself is more of a party trick than an actual needed thing. Could you imagine the consistency this would bring to a persons game? You don't have to, just watch pro snooker.
1. Final stroke with eyes closed, can't hit cueball reliably, without miscueing or badly missing. (Beginner)
2. Final stroke with eyes closed, makes the ball more than not (intermediate beginner)
3. Final stroke with eyes closed, makes the ball about equally as well as with eyes open, but maybe less accurate control (intermediate)
4. Final stroke with eyes closed, same as above, but with consistent cueball control. Can take the cue out of the v of the bridge and put it back with eyes still closed and still make the shot (advanced)
5. Eyes closed after step in, going down and stroking with eyes closed the whole time, still making most shots (pro level). Never seen this myself, but it's claimed some snooker pros can do this. I sure can't. With practise I can make one particular shot after some trial and error, but on every shot is at an entirely different level from where I am currently. I think this shows the degree of consistency in setup required at the highest level, even though the feat itself is more of a party trick than an actual needed thing. Could you imagine the consistency this would bring to a persons game? You don't have to, just watch pro snooker.
Last edited:
Good post. I agree that it's not too difficult to find the aim line from a standing position, and that finding that line and ensuring our stance is built around it is much more challenging once we bend down into the shot.
This is true for ghostball or contact point aiming, but not so much for fractional aiming. When looking at the aim line from a standing position, you look at where the aim line hits in reference to the ob itself (using basic quarters or eighths to pinpoint a certain target on the ob or just outside its left or right edge). This same reference point or target can easily be seen when you bend down into the shot to address the cb. So it's easier to keep that line. You determine/select the line and the target from a standing position, then you build your stance around that line and bring your cue into it, ensuring that your stroke is headed toward the same target you selected from the standing position.
Perspective is irrelevant with this method because there's only one line, and it goes from ccb to the ob target/reference. Pool balls may be spheres, but no matter where we stand, when we look at a ball we see a circle. And a circle can easily be sliced, vertically, into quarters and eighths for the purpose of determining a referenced aim point.
To a certain point you are right about fractional aiming. You select a target that can be easily seen (relatively speaking) from down over the ball. The cue, is however, not a rifle. You do not have a rear and a front sight to line up to your aimpoint. While you do have a visual of the front of the cue, as to where it's pointed, it's a bit like sighting along the barrel. It's not entirely accurate and to make it worse some people have visual problems with parallax and other sorts of visual distortions when down over the shot. Usually (as far as what players have been telling me, I obviously cannot see through their eyes) the cue position under the chin is a sort of compromise to give the best view of the shot and the cue. Determining wether the cue is EXACTLY on the line is far from as trivial as some would think, and being minutely off matters.
Edited to add that for thinner cuts, fractional aimers use the balls edge, rather than the tip, so then they're not even directly over the line and some degree of "imagination" is needed.
Last edited:
Funny, in my 3d world.....I always see a sphere...... so leave the “we” shit out.
You only see a sphere because it is smaller than you. You also don't think that a half ball hit exists..... So....
And when you show up in the aiming forum all we see is a QUACK
You can't "see" a sphere. You only see a 2-dimensional image (with edges) that your brain interprets as a sphere.
pj <- long as we're being all anal about language...
chgo
NOW, we finally agree
Huh, I use the ghost ball line in such videos as a reference to say that if an objective aiming system works then it must resolve to the (unknown) ghost ball line. The ghost ball/shot line exists but to the shooter without something to mark it then it will always be an estimation. Thus if one wants to check the aiming system then one marks it and then sees if the application of the system resolves to that line. Once established that it does for a wide range of shots then one can trust that the system resolves to gb.
Technically you're seeing a composit image created from two 2-dimensional images. The brain using cues like binocular disparity, parallax and convergence to create an illusion of a 3 dimensional view. Duckie could solve his entire problem by closing one eye.
I expect nothing less from you. Lol.
In this world, humans look at an object and capture light rays reflecting from that object. Each eye captures its own light rays, and the light data gets converted to electrical signals so that the brain can form images of what we're seeing. There are two images, one from each eye, and both are two-dimensional. Those images are then sent to the brain's visual cortex where a three-dimensional perception is created. The brain classifies 2D images in accordance with shape, color, and movement, and can therefore create depth, making things look 3D.
But at the root of human vision all we really see is light reflecting off of solid objects, shapes, like circles or squares or triangles or whatever. When color is factored in around the edges....POW!, like magic, the brain turns those images into 3D. Still, when you look a 3D sphere, humans can only see two perspectives of it, one from the left eye and one from the right, and each is a 2D circular shaped object. Look at a 3D drawing or painting that is shaded accurately... It is 100% 2D, but the brain gets tricked (because of the varying shapes and color shading) into processing the painting as 3D. It's an illusion of course, because there is no physical depth, only shapes and colors.
Well, I know this doesn't concern you, but for us humans it's pretty fascinating stuff.
JC
Coos Cues
What is the difference between your brain knowing the center of the ball is closer to your eyes because it can perceive the distance and an illusion of 3d? In any case you "see" what is in front of you, a sphere. Your eyes tell you it's a sphere and by golly it is. Isn't that seeing it exactly as it exists? I don't get the over complication of our senses. Very unnecessary unless you're in science class.
Biggest part of aiming is to learn estimate the cut angle needed. Many don´t put enough effort to this because they accuse faulty mechanics.
I love nowadays playing shooter´s pool billiard simulation game. There everybody have perfect stroke always.
Still those u have good sense of aiming prevail. It is 100% proof that aiming matters more than people thinks. No matter the system you use. Stoke mechanics are important but not so much as people think.
I love nowadays playing shooter´s pool billiard simulation game. There everybody have perfect stroke always.
Still those u have good sense of aiming prevail. It is 100% proof that aiming matters more than people thinks. No matter the system you use. Stoke mechanics are important but not so much as people think.
That would be true if everyone had the same perspective as the game while over the cue. I can't make anything in these games, I miss long shots and even routine shots all the time. In real life, I can make these shots with my eyes literally shut, so clearly something is going on. I've been playing pool games on and off for years. I can't get anywhere near my skills in real life. I have no touch and no shotmaking in these games, and my deflection calculations are off, even using simulations of shafts I actually own and play with. In the snooker simulations I can't make ANYTHING happen. Routine shots that I make near 100% in real life seem almost impossible and difficult shots ARE impossible to me in this game. I like playing them as a pastime, but usually quit in frustration after a short while.
Last edited:
I know that happens to most people. I suffer it too little. On snooker there my high break is only 88 and 14.1 66. On 8 ball I seem to play pretty ok level and my run out % is more than 20 there.
In game shafts deflect little more than counterparts on real life i noticed. But even centerball hits are difficult to most of players.
I think it is due not feel of real 3d space. Which is big part of our perception on pool table. IMO it still reveals how many players compensate aiming subconsiously in real life and when they can´t do that they will play a lot worse there. Then same time they praise about shooting straight on real life.
For me it is telling they have not figured out reliable way to really aim and most of their aiming is just "feel" and compensating. When conditions change their game often falls apart.
As coach and teacher of the game i think there is a lot more tricks what eyes with balls on rectangle area do than most ever figure.