A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds

[BC21]

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.

True enough. But when it comes to aiming pool balls, only the horizontal circumference (equator) of the ball is being used. The fact that the ball is a sphere is irrelevant when it comes to aiming, unless you're using ghostball and must estimate or guess how far away the center of the ghostball has to be from the fat portion of the ob. That's why it takes so long to get really good at it... HAMB is rooted in trial and error, guesswork, because we have to estimate depth.

With contact point aiming, the contact points are on the equator of the ball, but they're oriented differently depending on your view/perspective of the ball. But still, it's the circumference (a circle or horizontal disk I suppose) that is being used. The rest of sphere is unused and just blocks our view of the backside of the ball.

With fractional aiming the aim points are based on the simple width/diameter of the ball. And in that respect the balls can be viewed as, or considered as, simple circles. Maybe that's why I'm circle oriented instead of sphere oriented. I see two round objects, two circular objects, and imagine the relationship or overlap needed to send one into the other in order to creat a certain shot angle. To me that's simpler than thinking in spheres and pretending that the unseen area of a ball plays any role in aiming. Those unseen areas are involved in the physical action of the shot, of course, but not in the aiming portion of the shot.

 

[BC21]

Here is example of no guesswork aiming.
It's just aiming one simple circle (white cb) into another simple circle (green ob). The aim line is straight through the center of the cb to the right edge of the ob. It doesn't matter that these are spheres. There is no need to estimate where the middle of the cb would be if it were butted up to the ob. There is no need to locate a contact point on the ob, then estimate an equal but opposite contact point on the cb, or a parallel shift or whatever, then try to keep those points in reference as you move into the shot. Instead, it's as simple as thinking....I'm going straight through the middle of the white circle and sending it down a line that will cause it to overlap half of the green circle. It doesn't that they actually don't overlap because their spheres and not circles. The fact that they are spherea plays no role in the aiming process.

I realize that most players here probably learned via ghostball or contact points. And so when it comes to teaching someone else how to pocket balls, many experienced players, included some great instructors, stick to teaching the same method from which they learned. They ignore the fact that it took a long time to get good at it because there's a lot of estimations, a lot of trial and error involved. So they tell the student, "This is what it takes, a lot of work, hitting a million balls. That's how I did it and how every other good player has done it. There are no shortcuts."

But honestly, that old-school stuff is becoming outdated. Sure, it works. It has always worked. But a person can quickly learn how to aim today by playing a pool game on their phone. The brain can develop the synaptic connections needed to quickly recognize cb-ob relationships without a bunch of time-comsuming trial and error or guesswork. Of course, developing a stroke and good fundamentals requires a cue and table time, but aiming can be learned much quicker by using newer tools that eliminate or reduce guesswork, like pool video games or ghostball templates, and definitely aiming systems that don't rely on hamb as a method of development.

 

[Poolmanis]

Here is example of no guesswork aiming.
It's just aiming one simple circle (white cb) into another simple circle (green ob). The aim line is straight through the center of the cb to the right edge of the ob. It doesn't matter that these are spheres. There is no need to estimate where the middle of the cb would be if it were butted up to the ob. There is no need to locate a contact point on the ob, then estimate an equal but opposite contact point on the cb, or a parallel shift or whatever, then try to keep those points in reference as you move into the shot. Instead, it's as simple as thinking....I'm going straight through the middle of the white circle and sending it down a line that will cause it to overlap half of the green circle. It doesn't that they actually don't overlap because their spheres and not circles. The fact that they are spherea plays no role in the aiming process.

I realize that most players here probably learned via ghostball or contact points. And so when it comes to teaching someone else how to pocket balls, many experienced players, included some great instructors, stick to teaching the same method from which they learned. They ignore the fact that it took a long time to get good at it because there's a lot of estimations, a lot of trial and error involved. So they tell the student, "This is what it takes, a lot of work, hitting a million balls. That's how I did it and how every other good player has done it. There are no shortcuts."

But honestly, that old-school stuff is becoming outdated. Sure, it works. It has always worked. But a person can quickly learn how to aim today by playing a pool game on their phone. The brain can develop the synaptic connections needed to quickly recognize cb-ob relationships without a bunch of time-comsuming trial and error or guesswork. Of course, developing a stroke and good fundamentals requires a cue and table time, but aiming can be learned much quicker by using newer tools that eliminate or reduce guesswork, like pool video games or ghostball templates, and definitely aiming systems that don't rely on hamb as a method of development.

View attachment 591223

My methods are 90% of same as yours. I had 7 years without playing because rheumatism and when i started again i figured out to learn game again new way. I came up similar stuff. After that my game went way over my old level of play. I did start run regular 100+ on 14.1 and made maximums on Snooker. Also won some Finnish Champs on Finnish Kaisa etc.. Also I can play any game without much adjust of ball size. From Snooker to Finnish Kaisa and Russian Pyramid. It took time because i did not have anybody to teach me anything about that and used to do a lot of research from Dr. Dave site about physics and stuff to really get all pieces working out perfectly.
I just somedays have wishes that i could go back in time when i was young with this knowledge

 

[JB Cases]

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.

I disagree about your assessment of aiming systems that have a pivot from either direction. The alignment and subsequent delivery are not negatively impacted by pivot direction at all.

As for the eyes closed test, aiming systems users can and do this exercise just as well as any others. If you're on the right shot line and balanced then you can deliver the cue straight.

Take someone like Bustamante. Watch this video and tell me that the closed eyes test is likely to work with the way he addresses the cueball during the warm-up strokes. Look at the shot at 26:30 and the next shot. I chose these because you can get a decent view of how he is addressing the cueball.

My point is that aiming and execution are two different aspects of the game but are closely related. You are correct that not being aimed right can cause someone to stroke badly or to use so-called body english to steer the cueball with deflection or to gear it in. You are also correct that being off-balance but on the correct shot line can result in the shooter sending the cueball off of that line. As I mentioned in an earlier post this was (IS) one of my problems. During the testing we did with the DigiCue and slow motion video I discovered that even though I was 100% sure I was addressing the cue ball at center ball I was in fact slightly off center. This was only seen through the super slow motion with the camera positioned right over the cue ball. What should I think about that when visually I am standing comfortably and am super focused on hitting the cue ball in the center and straight down a line? I mean I am doing everything humanly possible at that moment to ensure that I am putting my cue down at center and stroking straight and everything looks perfect and then when I hit the ball it goes BEEP to tell me that I didn't stroke straight?

This is what I mean when I say that there are no one-size-fits all methods. A person can understand the directions, can understand the "ideal" stance position and ideal stroking mechanics and understand the ideals and try really hard to adopt them and be really sure that they are and still have issues that are difficult to resolve. Conversely you can have players with form that no competent instructor would ever tell a student is ok and yet they play lights out. I think that in the modern era where everyone has access to cell phones with pretty good video resolution and some with great slow motion that video analysis can be incredibly helpful in identifying those pesky issues that are hard to see in real time.

In the video I made which you analyzed I asked "why did I miss that shot" several times when I was hyper focused on aiming to the known objective line. The reason I asked that is because when down I didn't feel uncomfortable and I didn't notice any body english or jumping up. But when viewed afterward the fact that I did NOT hit the ball in the center was clear. And slowed down the small body movements that cause it are much easier to see. So we can hopefully agree that the "aiming system", in this case a true half ball aim, was not the cause of the issue.

Conversely in another portion of the video I used the 90/90 aiming system and was making spot shots from a variety of cueball positions so one would wonder why that was possible when I had more trouble with a marked position where the aiming was clear and 100% objective.

To me there is no single answer. I think that there are a lot of factors in play. Many of which are correctable as you noted. But it is not the aiming system which causes the inconsistency in stance and delivery. On the contrary it is my opinion that a good objective aiming system actually forces more consistency upon a player who is otherwise inconsistent in stance and delivery. The marriage of a great objective aiming method PLUS properly consistent stance/delivery fundamentals produces the right results barring issues such a diabetic vision deterioration, injuries, severe arthritis etc..

I do think that in order to break it down and have the best opportunity to get to consistent form despite any such issues shotmaking and playing ability tests are great ways to measure progress and identify the component issues.

 

[Imac007]

Here is example of no guesswork aiming.

I realize your example is just that. My problem occurs when the cue points through the center of the white ball and is past the visual perimeter of the object ball. You are no longer pointing at an equatorial target. I see you consider ghost ball and contact points as “old school”. I agree that pointing at an imaginary ball and estimating it’s contact point is definitely not an evolution. And we want progress.

I realize that most players here probably learned via ghostball or contact points.

I can only assume you are lining up the cue ball edge with lets say the quarter ball equatorial location and then parallel shifting to center ball to get to a quarter ball cut without using the imaginary ball method.
Contact points fine tune that shift dynamic.
The ob to pocket line has a surface exit point.
The cue ball’s contact point is on a line parallel to the ob to pocket line.
By aligning the contact points and doing a similar parallel shift to cb center you get a line more precise than fractions, except when they happen to coincide.
In essence all aiming methods are trying to get into the impact zone, defined by center ball.
Adjustments are made from there.

My point is that both methods need to parallel shift.

I gave up on two of those notions in order to evolve.

I pre-adjust my contact points having the ob to pocket line go to the undercut side of the pocket.
The cb contact point sits on a line parallel to that line.
I line up these contact points.
I then parallel shift to cb center.

The second notion that departs from the contact point system is the idea that center ball is only used as a starting reference and not a cueing line.
This is where evolution starts.
Dr. Dave shifted the cue to the outside on a parallel plane to give us the aim line for gearing english.
By using about 50% parallel shifted outside english the original preset undercut line opens up the whole pocket to receive the pocket whether it gears or throws the ball there.
If the outside english is not conducive to positioning, then convergent inside english, replaces center ball.
I call this an evolution.
Throw at all angles, at all speeds is limited to no more than 1°.

As with almost everything there is an exception. In this case I use center ball for straight in shots.
For those shots I simple connect the two contact points center ball.

Applying convergent inside uses the undercut line.
The cue line is modified by drawing a line from about an eighth of a tip beside the core center of the cue ball to the middle of the center ball line between the two balls.
That is the aim line.
The cue and bridge are not on the parallel shift undercut line they end up on the inside side of that line.
The cue line now converges with that undercut line at its center and extends into the ob impact area.
By using the midpoint to create the cue line, every shot receives the same amount of adjustment in the impact area.
This process has negligible deflection and throw effect.
If there is any, they virtually would cancel each other, having opposite effects.

This was devised using Dr. Dave physics results on his site.

 

[Low500]

I disagree about your assessment of aiming systems that have a pivot from either direction. The alignment and subsequent delivery are not negatively impacted by pivot direction at all.

As for the eyes closed test, aiming systems users can and do this exercise just as well as any others. If you're on the right shot line and balanced then you can deliver the cue straight.

Take someone like Bustamante. Watch this video and tell me that the closed eyes test is likely to work with the way he addresses the cueball during the warm-up strokes. Look at the shot at 26:30 and the next shot. I chose these because you can get a decent view of how he is addressing the cueball.

My point is that aiming and execution are two different aspects of the game but are closely related. You are correct that not being aimed right can cause someone to stroke badly or to use so-called body english to steer the cueball with deflection or to gear it in. You are also correct that being off-balance but on the correct shot line can result in the shooter sending the cueball off of that line. As I mentioned in an earlier post this was (IS) one of my problems. During the testing we did with the DigiCue and slow motion video I discovered that even though I was 100% sure I was addressing the cue ball at center ball I was in fact slightly off center. This was only seen through the super slow motion with the camera positioned right over the cue ball. What should I think about that when visually I am standing comfortably and am super focused on hitting the cue ball in the center and straight down a line? I mean I am doing everything humanly possible at that moment to ensure that I am putting my cue down at center and stroking straight and everything looks perfect and then when I hit the ball it goes BEEP to tell me that I didn't stroke straight?

This is what I mean when I say that there are no one-size-fits all methods. A person can understand the directions, can understand the "ideal" stance position and ideal stroking mechanics and understand the ideals and try really hard to adopt them and be really sure that they are and still have issues that are difficult to resolve. Conversely you can have players with form that no competent instructor would ever tell a student is ok and yet they play lights out. I think that in the modern era where everyone has access to cell phones with pretty good video resolution and some with great slow motion that video analysis can be incredibly helpful in identifying those pesky issues that are hard to see in real time.

In the video I made which you analyzed I asked "why did I miss that shot" several times when I was hyper focused on aiming to the known objective line. The reason I asked that is because when down I didn't feel uncomfortable and I didn't notice any body english or jumping up. But when viewed afterward the fact that I did NOT hit the ball in the center was clear. And slowed down the small body movements that cause it are much easier to see. So we can hopefully agree that the "aiming system", in this case a true half ball aim, was not the cause of the issue.

Conversely in another portion of the video I used the 90/90 aiming system and was making spot shots from a variety of cueball positions so one would wonder why that was possible when I had more trouble with a marked position where the aiming was clear and 100% objective.

To me there is no single answer. I think that there are a lot of factors in play. Many of which are correctable as you noted. But it is not the aiming system which causes the inconsistency in stance and delivery. On the contrary it is my opinion that a good objective aiming system actually forces more consistency upon a player who is otherwise inconsistent in stance and delivery. The marriage of a great objective aiming method PLUS properly consistent stance/delivery fundamentals produces the right results barring issues such a diabetic vision deterioration, injuries, severe arthritis etc..

I do think that in order to break it down and have the best opportunity to get to consistent form despite any such issues shotmaking and playing ability tests are great ways to measure progress and identify the component issues.

You said=====>"To me there is no single answer. I think that there are a lot of factors in play. Many of which are correctable as you noted. But it is not the aiming system which causes the inconsistency in stance and delivery. On the contrary it is my opinion that a good objective aiming system actually forces more consistency upon a player who is otherwise inconsistent in stance and delivery. The marriage of a great objective aiming method PLUS properly consistent stance/delivery fundamentals produces the right results barring issues such a diabetic vision deterioration, injuries, severe arthritis etc..
I do think that in order to break it down and have the best opportunity to get to consistent form despite any such issues shotmaking and playing ability tests are great ways to measure progress and identify the component issues."

I said those very same things, (the stuff in bold), right here... years ago.
And the "Naysayer Posse" went totally BATCRAZY with their twisted ridicule.
Those are some very good observations, John Barton.
You are a credit to the game. Keep on punchin'

 

[JB Cases]

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 hadn't thought about this but it makes perfect sense. I would only wonder whether the physics engine accounts for swerve and deflection. For center ball shots absolutely the assumption should be that the cueball will go straight down the line chosen and thus the aim is either on or off as unintentional spin is not possible.

 

[JB Cases]

I hadn't thought about this but it makes perfect sense. I would only wonder whether the physics engine accounts for swerve and deflection. For center ball shots absolutely the assumption should be that the cueball will go straight down the line chosen and thus the aim is either on or off as unintentional spin is not possible.

What online game is out there where we can shoot without sidespin and test aiming acuity? In other words ONLY centerball hits are possible.

 

[JB Cases]

I realize your example is just that. My problem occurs when the cue points through the center of the white ball and is past the visual perimeter of the object ball. You are no longer pointing at an equatorial target. I see you consider ghost ball and contact points as “old school”. I agree that pointing at an imaginary ball and estimating it’s contact point is definitely not an evolution. And we want progress.

I can only assume you are lining up the cue ball edge with lets say the quarter ball equatorial location and then parallel shifting to center ball to get to a quarter ball cut without using the imaginary ball method.
Contact points fine tune that shift dynamic.
The ob to pocket line has a surface exit point.
The cue ball’s contact point is on a line parallel to the ob to pocket line.
By aligning the contact points and doing a similar parallel shift to cb center you get a line more precise than fractions, except when they happen to coincide.
In essence all aiming methods are trying to get into the impact zone, defined by center ball.
Adjustments are made from there.

My point is that both methods need to parallel shift.

I gave up on two of those notions in order to evolve.

I pre-adjust my contact points having the ob to pocket line go to the undercut side of the pocket.
The cb contact point sits on a line parallel to that line.
I line up these contact points.
I then parallel shift to cb center.

The second notion that departs from the contact point system is the idea that center ball is only used as a starting reference and not a cueing line.
This is where evolution starts.
Dr. Dave shifted the cue to the outside on a parallel plane to give us the aim line for gearing english.
By using about 50% parallel shifted outside english the original preset undercut line opens up the whole pocket to receive the pocket whether it gears or throws the ball there.
If the outside english is not conducive to positioning, then convergent inside english, replaces center ball.
I call this an evolution.
Throw at all angles, at all speeds is limited to no more than 1°.

As with almost everything there is an exception. In this case I use center ball for straight in shots.
For those shots I simple connect the two contact points center ball.

Applying convergent inside uses the undercut line.
The cue line is modified by drawing a line from about an eighth of a tip beside the core center of the cue ball to the middle of the center ball line between the two balls.
That is the aim line.
The cue and bridge are not on the parallel shift undercut line they end up on the inside side of that line.
The cue line now converges with that undercut line at its center and extends into the ob impact area.
By using the midpoint to create the cue line, every shot receives the same amount of adjustment in the impact area.
This process has negligible deflection and throw effect.
If there is any, they virtually would cancel each other, having opposite effects.

This was devised using Dr. Dave physics results on his site.

This is where some of my thinking has been this past decade. I am looking for known quantities and thinking that if the physics are absolutely clear for an easily identifiable aim then there must be correlating equal/opposite effects. Thus a system must be developable that allows for repeatable calibration and calculation.

 

[bbb]

I realize your example is just that. My problem occurs when the cue points through the center of the white ball and is past the visual perimeter of the object ball. You are no longer pointing at an equatorial target. I see you consider ghost ball and contact points as “old school”. I agree that pointing at an imaginary ball and estimating it’s contact point is definitely not an evolution. And we want progress.

I can only assume you are lining up the cue ball edge with lets say the quarter ball equatorial location and then parallel shifting to center ball to get to a quarter ball cut without using the imaginary ball method.
Contact points fine tune that shift dynamic.
The ob to pocket line has a surface exit point.
The cue ball’s contact point is on a line parallel to the ob to pocket line.
By aligning the contact points and doing a similar parallel shift to cb center you get a line more precise than fractions, except when they happen to coincide.
In essence all aiming methods are trying to get into the impact zone, defined by center ball.
Adjustments are made from there.

My point is that both methods need to parallel shift.

I gave up on two of those notions in order to evolve.

I pre-adjust my contact points having the ob to pocket line go to the undercut side of the pocket.
The cb contact point sits on a line parallel to that line.
I line up these contact points.
I then parallel shift to cb center.

The second notion that departs from the contact point system is the idea that center ball is only used as a starting reference and not a cueing line.
This is where evolution starts.
Dr. Dave shifted the cue to the outside on a parallel plane to give us the aim line for gearing english.
By using about 50% parallel shifted outside english the original preset undercut line opens up the whole pocket to receive the pocket whether it gears or throws the ball there.
If the outside english is not conducive to positioning, then convergent inside english, replaces center ball.
I call this an evolution.
Throw at all angles, at all speeds is limited to no more than 1°.

As with almost everything there is an exception. In this case I use center ball for straight in shots.
For those shots I simple connect the two contact points center ball.

Applying convergent inside uses the undercut line.
The cue line is modified by drawing a line from about an eighth of a tip beside the core center of the cue ball to the middle of the center ball line between the two balls.
That is the aim line.
The cue and bridge are not on the parallel shift undercut line they end up on the inside side of that line.
The cue line now converges with that undercut line at its center and extends into the ob impact area.
By using the midpoint to create the cue line, every shot receives the same amount of adjustment in the impact area.
This process has negligible deflection and throw effect.
If there is any, they virtually would cancel each other, having opposite effects.

This was devised using Dr. Dave physics results on his site.

could you diagram a shot with convergent inside please?

 

[BC21]

I realize your example is just that. My problem occurs when the cue points through the center of the white ball and is past the visual perimeter of the object ball. You are no longer pointing at an equatorial target. I see you consider ghost ball and contact points as “old school”. I agree that pointing at an imaginary ball and estimating it’s contact point is definitely not an evolution. And we want progress.

I can only assume you are lining up the cue ball edge with lets say the quarter ball equatorial location and then parallel shifting to center ball to get to a quarter ball cut without using the imaginary ball method.
Contact points fine tune that shift dynamic.
The ob to pocket line has a surface exit point.
The cue ball’s contact point is on a line parallel to the ob to pocket line.
By aligning the contact points and doing a similar parallel shift to cb center you get a line more precise than fractions, except when they happen to coincide.
In essence all aiming methods are trying to get into the impact zone, defined by center ball.
Adjustments are made from there.

My point is that both methods need to parallel shift.

I gave up on two of those notions in order to evolve.

I pre-adjust my contact points having the ob to pocket line go to the undercut side of the pocket.
The cb contact point sits on a line parallel to that line.
I line up these contact points.
I then parallel shift to cb center.

The second notion that departs from the contact point system is the idea that center ball is only used as a starting reference and not a cueing line.
This is where evolution starts.
Dr. Dave shifted the cue to the outside on a parallel plane to give us the aim line for gearing english.
By using about 50% parallel shifted outside english the original preset undercut line opens up the whole pocket to receive the pocket whether it gears or throws the ball there.
If the outside english is not conducive to positioning, then convergent inside english, replaces center ball.
I call this an evolution.
Throw at all angles, at all speeds is limited to no more than 1°.

As with almost everything there is an exception. In this case I use center ball for straight in shots.
For those shots I simple connect the two contact points center ball.

Applying convergent inside uses the undercut line.
The cue line is modified by drawing a line from about an eighth of a tip beside the core center of the cue ball to the middle of the center ball line between the two balls.
That is the aim line.
The cue and bridge are not on the parallel shift undercut line they end up on the inside side of that line.
The cue line now converges with that undercut line at its center and extends into the ob impact area.
By using the midpoint to create the cue line, every shot receives the same amount of adjustment in the impact area.
This process has negligible deflection and throw effect.
If there is any, they virtually would cancel each other, having opposite effects.

This was devised using Dr. Dave physics results on his site.

Informative post!

Concerning fractional shots that are thinner than a half ball, one can use the edge of the cb as you noted, or simply use the cue tip or ferrule as an aiming guide. In other words, instead of blindly aiming into no-man's land, you aim an eighth of a tip outside the edge of the ob, or aim 1 full tip or 1.5 tips outside the edge. You can even use the inside edge of the tip or ferrule as a guide.

None of these methods are any more challenging than trying to visualize an imaginary ghostball that sits 1.125" away from the ob, especially since that 1.125" distance only looks like 1.125" at a 90° shot perspective. For every other shot, from 0° to 89°, that 1.125" distance varies as far as what it looks like from different shot perspectives. When using the tip as a guide, the width is right in front of you, so aiming 1.25 tips or 2 tips or whatever away from the ob edge is something you can estimate quite easily.

 

[JC]

My point is that aiming and execution are two different aspects of the game but are closely related. You are correct that not being aimed right can cause someone to stroke badly or to use so-called body english to steer the cueball with deflection or to gear it in.

And here in lies the gem in your post John. How many times have all of us gotten down on a shot and been uncertain of the entire shot start to finish yet executed it anyway? And how many times has this led to our stroke being jinky on that shot where it may have looked substantially better on others?

All of this can be conquered with a rock solid pre shot routine, which of course includes aiming.

 

[JB Cases]

Informative post!

Concerning fractional shots that are thinner than a half ball, one can use the edge of the cb as you noted, or simply use the cue tip or ferrule as an aiming guide. In other words, instead of blindly aiming into no-man's land, you aim an eighth of a tip outside the edge of the ob, or aim 1 full tip or 1.5 tips outside the edge. You can even use the inside edge of the tip or ferrule as a guide.

None of these methods are any more challenging than trying to visualize an imaginary ghostball that sits 1.125" away from the ob, especially since that 1.125" distance only looks like 1.125" at a 90° shot perspective. For every other shot, from 0° to 89°, that 1.125" distance varies as far as what it looks like from different shot perspectives. When using the tip as a guide, the width is right in front of you, so aiming 1.25 tips or 2 tips or whatever away from the ob edge is something you can estimate quite easily.

You don't say......

 

[JB Cases]

And here in lies the gem in your post John. How many times have all of us gotten down on a shot and been uncertain of the entire shot start to finish yet executed it anyway? And how many times has this led to our stroke being jinky on that shot where it may have looked substantially better on others?

All of this can be conquered with a rock solid pre shot routine, which of course includes aiming.

 

[Imac007]

could you diagram a shot with convergent inside please?

An azbilliard poster, bioactive, previously drew a diagram based on his take that this was like TOI.
He included an insert of the cb center.
I copied the box and flipped it to put opposite the ghost ball since the offset he labeled as torque line, is mirrored at the ghost ball center.
That change in the impact area counters the original undercut line and sends the ball into pocket center.

Hope this works for you.

 

[Imac007]

Informative post!

Concerning fractional shots that are thinner than a half ball, one can use the edge of the cb as you noted, or simply use the cue tip or ferrule as an aiming guide. In other words, instead of blindly aiming into no-man's land, you aim an eighth of a tip outside the edge of the ob, or aim 1 full tip or 1.5 tips outside the edge. You can even use the inside edge of the tip or ferrule as a guide.

None of these methods are any more challenging than trying to visualize an imaginary ghostball that sits 1.125" away from the ob, especially since that 1.125" distance only looks like 1.125" at a 90° shot perspective. For every other shot, from 0° to 89°, that 1.125" distance varies as far as what it looks like from different shot perspectives. When using the tip as a guide, the width is right in front of you, so aiming 1.25 tips or 2 tips or whatever away from the ob edge is something you can estimate quite easily.

Contact point and the variation I detailed use actual points on the balls for determining the aim line. There is no imaginary ball estimating going on. The diagram I have since posted as asked by bbb, shows a ghost ball depiction. In fact, a better label might be a calibrated impact location.

 

[BC21]

You don't say......

And you aren't doing the experiment on a pool table where shot perspectives come into play. Here you can look around the ball from the top side and get fairly close to estimating 1.125" from its edge. A skilled artist, adept in spatial relations, could do very well at a desk while hovered over the ball like this, probably get a few dots exactly right. But on a pool table the ob is farther away, and the 1.125" estimate is made from the cb's perspective, which is screwed/angled from the shot line that leads to the pocket, and that makes the 1.125" distance more challenging to estimate.

I remember Dr. Cue, Tom Rossman, telling me that the ghostball is easy because it's always 1.125" from the ob. Then he placed a piece of chalk against the ob, diagonally, one corner touching the ball and the other corner straight out to about 1.125" away from the ball. He pointed to that far corner of the chalk and said, "It's always right there, no matter what the shot angle is." Then I said, ok...and I walked around to a perspective that had me lined straight through the diagonal line of the chalk and through center ob, a straight in shot. I told him it didn't look like 1.125" from here. Then i moved over to about a half ball perspective and said it didn't look like 1.125 from here either. Then i walked over to the 90° view and told him this is was only place where that 1.125 inches looks like 1.125 inches. We didn't talk about aiming anymore after that. He is a ghostball teacher because in his mind that is the best method for teaching players how to aim. And I understand why he feels that way -- because that's how he learned.

 

[Poolmanis]

I hadn't thought about this but it makes perfect sense. I would only wonder whether the physics engine accounts for swerve and deflection. For center ball shots absolutely the assumption should be that the cueball will go straight down the line chosen and thus the aim is either on or off as unintentional spin is not possible.

it is done perfectly as real world. Only thing that is still little off is cushion rebound angles(on some harder shots this come to play, most of shots noone see it and they are so close to real world that can be). That because they have not yet perfected rubber compression. Rubber Compression is on test version but still need to improve a little to finally get it implemented to final game.
Also they have made tables really, really good. When you play on Rasson it feels as annoying as real life Rasson , and Diamond feels, looks and play like Diamond on real world. They also have Brunswick copies that play a lot like Brunswick.

 

[Poolmanis]

Informative post!

Concerning fractional shots that are thinner than a half ball, one can use the edge of the cb as you noted, or simply use the cue tip or ferrule as an aiming guide. In other words, instead of blindly aiming into no-man's land, you aim an eighth of a tip outside the edge of the ob, or aim 1 full tip or 1.5 tips outside the edge. You can even use the inside edge of the tip or ferrule as a guide.

None of these methods are any more challenging than trying to visualize an imaginary ghostball that sits 1.125" away from the ob, especially since that 1.125" distance only looks like 1.125" at a 90° shot perspective. For every other shot, from 0° to 89°, that 1.125" distance varies as far as what it looks like from different shot perspectives. When using the tip as a guide, the width is right in front of you, so aiming 1.25 tips or 2 tips or whatever away from the ob edge is something you can estimate quite easily.

My aiming practice where i practice just the things you describe. Check how it works when put some practice on it.

ps around 55 minutes in i shoot some 45 degree cuts where i use my ferrule as aiming guide. I shoot them inside, then couple just follow and little outside too.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I disagree about your assessment of aiming systems that have a pivot from either direction. The alignment and subsequent delivery are not negatively impacted by pivot direction at all.

As for the eyes closed test, aiming systems users can and do this exercise just as well as any others. If you're on the right shot line and balanced then you can deliver the cue straight.

Take someone like Bustamante. Watch this video and tell me that the closed eyes test is likely to work with the way he addresses the cueball during the warm-up strokes. Look at the shot at 26:30 and the next shot. I chose these because you can get a decent view of how he is addressing the cueball.

My point is that aiming and execution are two different aspects of the game but are closely related. You are correct that not being aimed right can cause someone to stroke badly or to use so-called body english to steer the cueball with deflection or to gear it in. You are also correct that being off-balance but on the correct shot line can result in the shooter sending the cueball off of that line. As I mentioned in an earlier post this was (IS) one of my problems. During the testing we did with the DigiCue and slow motion video I discovered that even though I was 100% sure I was addressing the cue ball at center ball I was in fact slightly off center. This was only seen through the super slow motion with the camera positioned right over the cue ball. What should I think about that when visually I am standing comfortably and am super focused on hitting the cue ball in the center and straight down a line? I mean I am doing everything humanly possible at that moment to ensure that I am putting my cue down at center and stroking straight and everything looks perfect and then when I hit the ball it goes BEEP to tell me that I didn't stroke straight?

This is what I mean when I say that there are no one-size-fits all methods. A person can understand the directions, can understand the "ideal" stance position and ideal stroking mechanics and understand the ideals and try really hard to adopt them and be really sure that they are and still have issues that are difficult to resolve. Conversely you can have players with form that no competent instructor would ever tell a student is ok and yet they play lights out. I think that in the modern era where everyone has access to cell phones with pretty good video resolution and some with great slow motion that video analysis can be incredibly helpful in identifying those pesky issues that are hard to see in real time.

In the video I made which you analyzed I asked "why did I miss that shot" several times when I was hyper focused on aiming to the known objective line. The reason I asked that is because when down I didn't feel uncomfortable and I didn't notice any body english or jumping up. But when viewed afterward the fact that I did NOT hit the ball in the center was clear. And slowed down the small body movements that cause it are much easier to see. So we can hopefully agree that the "aiming system", in this case a true half ball aim, was not the cause of the issue.

Conversely in another portion of the video I used the 90/90 aiming system and was making spot shots from a variety of cueball positions so one would wonder why that was possible when I had more trouble with a marked position where the aiming was clear and 100% objective.

To me there is no single answer. I think that there are a lot of factors in play. Many of which are correctable as you noted. But it is not the aiming system which causes the inconsistency in stance and delivery. On the contrary it is my opinion that a good objective aiming system actually forces more consistency upon a player who is otherwise inconsistent in stance and delivery. The marriage of a great objective aiming method PLUS properly consistent stance/delivery fundamentals produces the right results barring issues such a diabetic vision deterioration, injuries, severe arthritis etc..

I do think that in order to break it down and have the best opportunity to get to consistent form despite any such issues shotmaking and playing ability tests are great ways to measure progress and identify the component issues.

I won't go over my post again in detail, but I will say this: It's always easier to build consistency when you do everything the same every time, rather than doing it differently. That is my main gripe with two directional physical pivot aiming systems, and I suspect (though I can't know for sure) it could be a reason why Stan moved away from those.

If you were to watch me from above, and I'm sure you'll find this to be true of most right handed shooters who go down low over the ball, you'll see the cue move in a sort of pivot from left to right as I'm going down. The hand is on the line the whole time (more or less) but the cue is sweeping into it. This is a function of how the body works. That means that I cannot put my cue on the shooting line while standing up, but rather it points to the left of that line and falls into place on that line as I go down. If you try to put your cue just on the line while you stand up and form your body around the cue as you go down, you may find your stance to be a lot less solid than it could be. The traditional snooker stance (though I had to change it up a bit because of back problems) has a number of "torquing" movements to cement the stance into place and get everything in line, this is one of them (there is also a hip torque). This movement COULD be worked into an aiming system with pivots in only one direction. I've yet to see someone make a unified shooting system around this possibility, but it could be done. There are several challenges to this, but they could probably be overcome.