Advise to Dr. DAVE From Ron V.

[Colin Colenso]

I know you didn't mean it this way, but just to be clear: neither the system nor the player find the aim line alone - they supplement each other in that task.

pj
chgo

As a stand alone statement that would be a better summary PJ. When I use it, I would say that I am quite conscious that the system puts me in the ball park and sets me up visually with a helpful perspective, but it is my job to find the pot line from there with a little adjustment.

Though I'm sure some can find this line without being conscious that it is they and not the system that is taking them to it.

There is an old aiming method that I recall which said when you are on a nearly straight shot, say 7/8ths ball and fuller, just aim full ball. If the aim in not too focused or deliberate it's quite amazing how the brain somehow picks out the required aim line, even though you feel like you're just aiming to the center of the OB.

This requires that you don't stare to hard on the aim. More like a bend down and shoot.

Similar tendencies have occured for me over the years when practicing many hours for days and weeks at a time. I just look and the ball, look at the pocket, bend down to the ball and it is lined up and it's fair to say I've got no idea how I was doing it. I was pretty much just aiming at the ball.

Anyway, I've done some 90/90 shooting recently, so I've give a report on how I execute it in the post below for those wanting to try it with a different approach.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

A Description of Executing 90/90

Since 90/90 came up a couple of months ago here I've tried it from time to time. In the last couple of days I've spent quite a bit of time trialing it.

As I've mentioned before, I have been using CTE as a reference system for several months and find it better than the system I was using before which was the 'looks right' system, or basically no system at all. I've found CTE to be quite useful as a repeatable standard reference method mainly because it helps me to get a better grasp of the position of the balls in space and how this relates to my cue's alignment and the pocket.

Anyway, after my trials last night I'd say I now prefer 90/90 as a reference system to Center to Edge (CTE). The main reasons I'd say is that the ETE line is clearer than the CTE line and the pivot can take me straight to the ball park of where I need to shoot.

I'm sure I'm not doing this the same way as other guys, so don't take this as THE method for shooting 90/90 that Ron teaches.

My Method

Firstly, I prefer to line up the actual ball edges, not the 90% from center. So a better description of what I do could be called Edge to Edge (ETE).

1. I lay my cue down on the table. holding the butt in my right hand, such that the center of the tip is lined up with the edges of the CB and OB.

2. Observing the shot, I estimate the approximate required pivot. eg. If it's a longish shot and 3/4 ball I know the pivot will be up near the butt end. If it's a 1/4 ball from 2 feet away I know the pivot will need to be in front of where the bridge hand would go. If it's a 1/2 ball from 3-4 feet away the pivot will be near the bridge hand. I don't do exact calculations, I just try to start the following move so I know I'm moving toward the right line.

e.g. If it's a long thickish cut I pretty much hold the butt in place in the air and pull the cue across as I'm sliding it into place. If the pivot is near the bridge hand length, the bridge slides straight down the cue as I pivot the backhand across. This is the most common method. You may need to shift your hips and move your feet a little to feel comfortable.

3. While keeping the ETE line in my peripheral vision I slide my left bridge hand down the cue as I pivot the cue toward the center of the CB. The last 2-3 inches of bridge slide are in a direct line with the center of the CB and it is in this phase that I try to lock into the pot line. When I do this, I am trying to see a line from the OB to the pocket. I set the bridge when it feels right. Throughout this process I am aware of the ETE line peripherally but my eyes are not darting back and forth from the aim line to the ETE line. I try to keep my left (dominant) eye over the cue the entire time.

Negatives: Short cut shots, straightish shots and long shots are not particularly useful for me at this stage.

However, for a great many regular shots that we are used to taking on, and where seeing the pot angle is not always a given, I've found it a comfortable and very useful reference system.

Hope to get some feedback from those who have a go at this. Give it a half hour or so and hopefully you'll get the hang of it. If you can't slide the bridge due to the rail or an interfering ball, just visualize that procedure and try to shift the cue into the appropriate position. Usually it will be pretty close to a natural back hand pivot anyway.

Colin

 

[JB Cases]

Scott -

As you know, I prepared two videos solely on the ins and outs of the S.A.M #3 shot.

SAM #3 part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zysbWeI2_ZE

SAM #3 part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vRi3Jih1Lg

This was my sincere effort to communicate the most important aspects of this critical shot.

We should be working together.

I am confident there are things you could teach me, and I'm also confident there are things I could teach you. And working together we and the students we teach are all better off.

I suggest we move forward positively.

Agreed?

Admit it Mike, that was just a unique way to show off your cues.

 

[Cornerman]

If the system proponents don't explain how these effects are accounted for in their systems, then I think the descriptions of the systems are incomplete.

I'll just take this one sentence because for nearly 10 years, this has been the heart of the justification on posters who have posted your type of articles and posts on and against aiming systems. The description is incomplete. The answer almost always is that you have to speak to the "inventor" or go see someone in person. There's a reason why. I've said it a dozens of times. You even mentioned my reason in your article (and yes, it took on a mocking tone.

I hope you read it this time, because it makes so much sense, I'm amazed that the logical posters don't seem to get it.

I've said ad nauseum that drawing diagrams isn't the right thing to do. Drawing diagrams isn't reality. It's paper. If drawing 2D diagrams worked, then we all would be masters at this game since we all know what the "geometrically correct" aim is. Yet, we miss. And not only do we miss, I'll bring back what mikepage just recently said:

For instance if you normally overcut a particular shot, and a system gets you to the right aim, it will look to you like you're hitting too thick. You have to put some trust in the new aim to use it effectively.

What I've boldfaced is a common to probably 100% of all shooters. There are certain shots that even if you draw it on paper in 2D, when you step up to the table, you will always see it wrong. So, if you're a geometrically-correct aimer, there is still a big disconnect between 2D and real world. Can you understand what I'm saying here? I'm sure you miss shots that you'd swear you aimed and hit the point where you were aiming, but you still missed. It happens to everyone. Again, it's because there is a disconnect between 2D and reality. I won't claim to know what happens, but it does. It's optics, perspective, tidal shifts, or solar flares. I don't care. It's reality. It happens to all of us. It happens all the time on what would be a person's "nuisance shot." ( It's also why I object to some of the solutions people come up with on the WEI table. It's amazing what people can do in 2D, but it's impossible in the real world.)

My feeling is that there is a disconnect on 100% of the shots between visual reality and 2D, but it's close enough that the effect isn't shown except on a few shots. That is, even if you know where the geometrically-correct spot is, it's not easy to see and hit. I'd love to see some kind of high-tech laser / vision measurement to see just how off we are when trying to aim at a geometrically-correct spot in space six feet down table.

So, what am I saying? I know that these systems in question as described aren't geometrically correct. They make no sense in 2D. Are people making adjustments? Probably, but I don't think I am. I think that the systems don't necessarily "overcome" the disconnect from 2D to reality. The systems just are what they are, with no bearing or relation with 2D. Or in other words, if you can admit that there is a disconnect between 2D and reality on some (hopefully many) of your own shots, then that would be a start to understand why using 2D drawings isn't appropriate to try to debunk the non-geometrical aiming claims.

And by correlation, we all might see that if I say "aim the 1/4 ball of the cueball at the edge," that on my theoretical laser and vision measurement, I might not be at 1/4 ball or the cueball edge, but that's what I see on the table. That would be the reverse disconnect between reality and 2D layout. I'm good with that, since I don't care about the 2D layout.

Fred <~~~ I know, it sounds like hooey

 

[PKM]

So, what am I saying? I know that these systems in question as described aren't geometrically correct. They make no sense in 2D. Are people making adjustments? Probably, but I don't think I am. I think that the systems don't necessarily "overcome" the disconnect from 2D to reality. The systems just are what they are, with no bearing or relation with 2D. Or in other words, if you can admit that there is a disconnect between 2D and reality on some (hopefully many) of your own shots, then that would be a start to understand why using 2D drawings isn't appropriate to try to debunk the non-geometrical aiming claims.

But there isn't really a disconnect. There is still only one correct contact point for a particular shot (for center pocket). A diagram should be able to show that, and how a particular aim gets you there. Difficulties in actually perceiving the correct aim don't change that.

 

[Cornerman]

But there isn't really a disconnect.

If you don't agree that there is an obvious disconnect, then none of my post will make any sense. So, that's that.

There is still only one correct contact point for a particular shot (for center pocket). A diagram should be able to show that, and how a particular aim gets you there. Difficulties in actually perceiving the correct aim don't change that.

Can I give a sigh without offending? Because I don't want to offend. I'm tired of offending. But I want to sigh. I was pretty long-winded, and I thought I gave a rational explanation about the disconnect and the reverse with the obvious proof or at least implied proof from mikepage's quote. The perception is the crux of reality.

Fred

 

[dr_dave]

... Drawing diagrams isn't reality. It's paper. If drawing 2D diagrams worked, then we all would be masters at this game since we all know what the "geometrically correct" aim is. Yet, we miss.
...
There are certain shots that even if you draw it on paper in 2D, when you step up to the table, you will always see it wrong. So, if you're a geometrically-correct aimer, there is still a big disconnect between 2D and real world.
...
My feeling is that there is a disconnect on 100% of the shots between visual reality and 2D, but it's close enough that the effect isn't shown except on a few shots. That is, even if you know where the geometrically-correct spot is, it's not easy to see and hit.
...
So, what am I saying? I know that these systems in question as described aren't geometrically correct. They make no sense in 2D. Are people making adjustments? Probably, but I don't think I am. I think that the systems don't necessarily "overcome" the disconnect from 2D to reality. The systems just are what they are, with no bearing or relation with 2D.
...
I know, it sounds like hooey

I don't think it "sounds like hooey" at all. I think 3D visualization and perception is probably the greatest "grand challenge" of playing pool. If we could always align and aim exactly as we would diagram a shot in 2D, we would never miss (provided we know where the necessary ghost-ball target is for a particular shot, based on throw; and provided we have a good method for predicting CB motion due to squirt and swerve when using English). If a system helps somebody improve their alignment and aiming-line perception skills in 3D, I'm all for it (even if the essence of the system can't be described in words or illustrated in drawings).

BTW, what did you think of Colins' summarizing post, especially the last paragraph:

As there seems to be a common theme that us knuckleheaded critics are anti-90/90, CTE etc type systems, I wanted to make a post listing what I perceive to be the strongest advantages of these systems.

I think these advantages are the main reason players often find great success aiming and shooting this way.

1. Sighting point to point helps one to percieve an exact line and to take in the positions of the two balls relative to this line. In other words, they use a repeatable fixed method to visualize the ball positions.

2. These systems put you either right on line to begin with or in the ball park when used for appropriate shots.

3. In the pivot phase they move from this fixed line to another visual line that they perceive through the center of the CB. This finding of an aim line forces the mind to be decisive and exact. I believe forcing this decisiveness trains the mind not to wander and to make better decisions than just feeling around back and forth hoping to feel a ghost ball or contact point angle.

4. I suspect this one is the most powerful factor in these aiming methods. They force a player to commit to a pot line and then strike the cue dead straight through that line, rather than to swoop sideways on the shot as almost all beginners do. Because they focus hard on their pre-stroke alignment, they trust this line and stroke straight. If they do miss certain shots they will soon compensate with their aim until they learn to see the correct line.

The normal player very often aims thick on their cut angles and swoops a little to make the cuts. When they try to bring speed or english into those shots they meet with many difficulties. So using any system that forces a player to adopt strict and accurate pre-alignment, followed by a straight stroke, should meet with considerable success and consistancy after intensive practice.

5. Because players learn to trust their pre-alignment they begin to be able to relax during the actual stroke. This takes tension out of their arms and body and they can begin to execute with better speed and a more satisfactory feeling during execution. This may explain the feeling that they feel like they just pivot, bang and the ball goes in.

This is quite different to the normal play experience where there is a tendency to ride the ball into the hole. This occurs when players don't trust their alignment and tend to swoop a little to ride the cue ball to the correct point. This method of playing tends to make one have to work physically and mentally during the stroke. When pre-aligned well, the stroke is simply a matter of swinging the cue.

The only thing I don't agree with regarding these systems is that the systems find the aim line. I think it is the players that align themselves (via slight intuitive adjustments) to the correct aim line when need be. It will take them a little while to develop this ability for a wide range of shots.
​

Regards,
Dave

 

[PKM]

If you don't agree that there is an obvious disconnect, then none of my post will make any sense. So, that's that.




Can I give a sigh without offending? Because I don't want to offend. I'm tired of offending. But I want to sigh. I was pretty long-winded, and I thought I gave a rational explanation about the disconnect and the reverse with the obvious proof or at least implied proof from mikepage's quote. The perception is the crux of reality.

Fred

Well that's why these debates go nowhere *sigh* I am not disagreeing about the importance of perception. But whether you perceive it correctly or not, a 1/2 ball hit will have a certain effect, etc. A diagram can show a 1/2 ball hit. Perceiving the correct aim is a different matter. If everyone tended to overcut shots due to their natural perception of a pool table (which is obviously not true), then you could talk about using some system to improve your perception and get you to the proper aim. Otherwise you might use a system to deal with your own perception issues. As Dr. Dave says, if a system improves your perception, that's great. It would still need to be "geometrically correct"

 

[john schmidt]

hi

i have not read any of this.
there is a couple of things that bug me.
i see some teachers trying to say that these are the secret aiming systems the pros use and dont want to tell you about.

they must be secret because im a pro because noones told me about them.


anyway i think the thing that helps people play better is fundamentals and decision making,shot selection etc.thats where the poolshools can help i think.

trying to tell people the pros pocket balls because they aim this way and if you pay me i will show you.lol

myself i would look to play anybody for money thats relying on aiming systems because they are merely a reference thats all.

anyway if these aiming systems wiork then these poolteachers should run out like crazy.

we all know thats not the case so what gives.

anyway thats jmho and when someone figures out a way to aim thats damn near failproof ill be the first to peel off big money for it.also ill tell the world for free and then i will be worshiped by the planet lol

 

[Cornerman]

Well that's why these debates go nowhere *sigh* I am not disagreeing about the importance of perception. But whether you perceive it correctly or not, a 1/2 ball hit will have a certain effect, etc. A diagram can show a 1/2 ball hit. Perceiving the correct aim is a different matter. If everyone tended to overcut shots due to their natural perception of a pool table (which is obviously not true), then you could talk about using some system to improve your perception and get you to the proper aim. Otherwise you might use a system to deal with your own perception issues. As Dr. Dave says, if a system improves your perception, that's great. It would still need to be "geometrically correct"

Sigh.

Please re-read my post. I addressed this.

Fred

 

[dr_dave]

instructors provide lots of value w/o aiming secrets

John,

Excellent post. I'm sure many people will appreciate your participation.

I also think it is unfortunate some instructors try to "sell themselves" based on sometimes-outrageous claims about an aiming system. A good instructor can provide tremendous value to an individual in helping them improve their fundamentals, helping them think better at the table (e.g., CB control, strategy, shot selection, etc.), providing them drills and a plan to improve further, providing encouragement, showing enthusiasm, etc., etc., etc. A good instructor is not valuable because they have some "secret" aiming system to offer, IMO.

Regards,
Dave

i have not read any of this.
there is a couple of things that bug me.
i see some teachers trying to say that these are the secret aiming systems the pros use and dont want to tell you about.

they must be secret because im a pro because noones told me about them.


anyway i think the thing that helps people play better is fundamentals and decision making,shot selection etc.thats where the poolshools can help i think.

trying to tell people the pros pocket balls because they aim this way and if you pay me i will show you.lol

myself i would look to play anybody for money thats relying on aiming systems because they are merely a reference thats all.

anyway if these aiming systems wiork then these poolteachers should run out like crazy.

we all know thats not the case so what gives.

anyway thats jmho and when someone figures out a way to aim thats damn near failproof ill be the first to peel off big money for it.also ill tell the world for free and then i will be worshiped by the planet lol

 

[Cornerman]

I don't think it "sounds like hooey" at all. I think 3D visualization and perception is probably the greatest "grand challenge" of playing pool. If we could always align and aim exactly as we would diagram a shot in 2D, we would never miss (provided we know where the necessary ghost-ball target is for a particular shot, based on throw; and provided we have a good method for predicting CB motion due to squirt and swerve when using English). If a system helps somebody improve their alignment and aiming-line perception skills in 3D, I'm all for it (even if the essence of the system can't be described in words or illustrated in drawings).

We're getting closer Dave, but we're still not on the same page. We're about one or two pages away. But that might be the closest we get. The aiming systems aren't focused on the improvement of aiming-line perception skills in 3D. The aiming systems are focused on getting someone to pocket balls. And that may or may not have anything to do with "aiming-line perception skills."

I would simply say that if an aiming system helps to improve ball-pocketing skills as part of an overall improvement of a persons skills, then I'm all for it. Not that what you've said is bad, but it would be misleading to highlight "improvement of alignment and aiming-line perception" as goals.

It is the perception challenge that answers why 2D drawings aren't the right thing to use to try to debunk the claims. Simply put. And maybe you and I need to be in the same room to discuss this to fully understand what I'm saying. I can already see that my post didn't make the sense I hoped to at least one reader. That's not his fault. That's completely mine.

BTW, what did you think of Colins' summarizing post,

Loved it, but as I said before, nothing there is new. Half of it was said by Pat Johnson or mikepage just about every time one of these threads get going. The other half was coverd by the rest of us.

especially the last paragraph:

do you mean this one?:

The only thing I don't agree with regarding these systems is that the systems find the aim line. I think it is the players that align themselves (via slight intuitive adjustments) to the correct aim line when need be. It will take them a little while to develop this ability for a wide range of shots.

I don't disagree with this in that it isn't the system alone. The player and the system work together. Even if you subscribe to a two point aiming system, the player still has to deterimine which aim is the right one.

Are there slight intuitive adjustments? I could say that "there doesn't have to be," but I'd never ever be able to tell you what I mean on the forum. It would have to be on the table. And since I'm only talking about Hal Houle's teachings, I couldn't comment on anyone else's.

Fred

 

[Colin Colenso]

Are there slight intuitive adjustments? I could say that "there doesn't have to be," but I'd never ever be able to tell you what I mean on the forum. It would have to be on the table. And since I'm only talking about Hal Houle's teachings, I couldn't comment on anyone else's.

Fred

Fred,
I recall long ago you mentioned a systematic method where you placed the tip in varying amounts to the side of the aim lines and then pivoted back to CB center. I can imagine that methods similar to this can produce a good range of required aim lines purely systematically. (So long as the player is capable of implementing the method accurately).

I wondered if this is something similar to what you are refering to when you mentioned that there doesn't have to be intuitive adjustments?

Colin

 

[devindra]

i have not read any of this.
there is a couple of things that bug me.
i see some teachers trying to say that these are the secret aiming systems the pros use and dont want to tell you about.

they must be secret because im a pro because noones told me about them.


anyway i think the thing that helps people play better is fundamentals and decision making,shot selection etc.thats where the poolshools can help i think.

trying to tell people the pros pocket balls because they aim this way and if you pay me i will show you.lol

myself i would look to play anybody for money thats relying on aiming systems because they are merely a reference thats all.

anyway if these aiming systems wiork then these poolteachers should run out like crazy.

we all know thats not the case so what gives.

anyway thats jmho and when someone figures out a way to aim thats damn near failproof ill be the first to peel off big money for it.also ill tell the world for free and then i will be worshiped by the planet lol

Many pros use aiming systems. It doesn't necessarily mean they can't miss, they just make the ball more than aiming by feel.

 

[Cornerman]

Fred,
I recall long ago you mentioned a systematic method where you placed the tip in varying amounts to the side of the aim lines and then pivoted back to CB center. I can imagine that methods similar to this can produce a good range of required aim lines purely systematically. (So long as the player is capable of implementing the method accurately).

I wondered if this is something similar to what you are refering to when you mentioned that there doesn't have to be intuitive adjustments?

Colin

Yes, for sure. This method that I use could have an infinite amount aimlines.

However, if you carry the "two points of aim" system further for example or my three points and pivot, understanding that they are "base systems," then after you expand to, say, 5 of 7 points of aim, the more points you add, the less each additonal aimpoint make an impact. It's my belief that you get to a number of points that due to your post's #1 and #2 paragraph, doing it this way is inherently more repeatable than, say, visualizing a ghost ball in space for your aim. And if balls are going in the hole, then I'll take the repeatability!

Again, I have to stress that I can't say anything about the other methods that other people are using because I don't know much about them.

Fred

 

[Terry Erdman]

Stevie Moore did.

i have not read any of this.
there is a couple of things that bug me.
i see some teachers trying to say that these are the secret aiming systems the pros use and dont want to tell you about.

they must be secret because im a pro because noones told me about them.


anyway i think the thing that helps people play better is fundamentals and decision making,shot selection etc.thats where the poolshools can help i think.

trying to tell people the pros pocket balls because they aim this way and if you pay me i will show you.lol

myself i would look to play anybody for money thats relying on aiming systems because they are merely a reference thats all.

anyway if these aiming systems wiork then these poolteachers should run out like crazy.

we all know thats not the case so what gives.

anyway thats jmho and when someone figures out a way to aim thats damn near failproof ill be the first to peel off big money for it.also ill tell the world for free and then i will be worshiped by the planet lol

Stevie Moore took Stan Shuffet's Pro One aiming system and he said he won his next tourney with it? Sounds like he likes what he got from Stan.

 

[SmoothStroke]

Thank you

i have not read any of this.
there is a couple of things that bug me.
i see some teachers trying to say that these are the secret aiming systems the pros use and dont want to tell you about.

they must be secret because im a pro because noones told me about them.


anyway i think the thing that helps people play better is fundamentals and decision making,shot selection etc.thats where the poolshools can help i think.

trying to tell people the pros pocket balls because they aim this way and if you pay me i will show you.lol

myself i would look to play anybody for money thats relying on aiming systems because they are merely a reference thats all.

anyway if these aiming systems wiork then these poolteachers should run out like crazy.

we all know thats not the case so what gives.

anyway thats jmho and when someone figures out a way to aim thats damn near failproof ill be the first to peel off big money for it.also ill tell the world for free and then i will be worshiped by the planet lol

Finally it has been said. Thank you
The thought process of prelimanary shot routine (angle,speed,tangent,redirect tangent,type of stroke,
thinking 3-4 or more balls ahead etc.etc.) in just a few seconds.
The last thing I want is to clutter my brain with another additive. The left brain,right brain is very powerful and can't be fooled. The better hitters in baseball are reaction hitters.They keep their head as clear as possible and react to the pitch.Those hitters also get fooled because of over thinking,over analyzing.Hitting a baseball is the single most difficult thing in all sports.
Billiard systems are a wonderful thing and very useful for certain applications, yet again I consider them just a check valve when you are unsure.Many systems are foolproof on paper until you get to a table that plays very short or long, Dirty balls,etc.now it's time to play pool and throw the book away.

Once I have gone thru my prelimanary shot routine I don't think I want to go down on a shot, move a hip, possibly break a hip,pivot point,grip distance,swoop sideways.
At that point I just shot down my entire prelim shot routine and at point of execution let left brain and right brain collide, possibly the worst thing you can do in pool or any other sport. If I had to do that I think I would put a grenade up my butt, tie a string from grenade to cue stick, when I pull the trigger " KABOOM" run out in one stroke.

I respect all the mathematicians and debaters on here you all do a fine job and I learn from all of you, ( even though I know it all) Joke
John if you find the instructor that holds the holy grail of aiming I will pay for the lessons and you can have all the worshipping,,, Please I insist.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Yes, for sure. This method that I use could have an infinite amount aimlines.

However, if you carry the "two points of aim" system further for example or my three points and pivot, understanding that they are "base systems," then after you expand to, say, 5 of 7 points of aim, the more points you add, the less each additonal aimpoint make an impact. It's my belief that you get to a number of points that due to your post's #1 and #2 paragraph, doing it this way is inherently more repeatable than, say, visualizing a ghost ball in space for your aim. And if balls are going in the hole, then I'll take the repeatability!

Again, I have to stress that I can't say anything about the other methods that other people are using because I don't know much about them.

Fred

That makes sense to me Fred.

Every system has to be looked into on its own merits. I agree that the 90/90 and CTE methods are kind of baseline systems.

In my own explanation of using 90/90 here , I described estimating the required pivot point. With a little practice this wouldn't be hard to develop to 5 or 7 lines of aim, and if we can get within that narrowish ball park, then that may be as good or better than what we're capable of achieving, in terms of accuracy, when trying to aim at an imaginary ghost ball.

If the system has these built in refinement methods, such that 10 aim lines can be produced, then they can work for basically all shots that are considered reasonably makeable. If there are only 3 aim points, then some intuitive adjustments will need to come into play.

Colin

 

[dr_dave]

We're getting closer Dave, but we're still not on the same page. We're about one or two pages away. But that might be the closest we get. The aiming systems aren't focused on the improvement of aiming-line perception skills in 3D. The aiming systems are focused on getting someone to pocket balls. And that may or may not have anything to do with "aiming-line perception skills."

Everybody's goal and focus is to "pocket balls," whether you use an "aiming system" or not. To pocket balls for a wide range of cut angles, ball distances, and angles to the pocket, you must have good 3D visualization and perception skills, you must be able to align your cue with the necessary aim line at the desired and necessary tip contact point on the CB, and you must have a consistent and accurate stroke. I don't think any "aiming system" can help in all of these areas unless your "aiming system" is:

FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS
PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE (don't just shoot balls, but intelligently practice!)
get coaching from good instructors
FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS
PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE (don't just shoot balls, but intelligently practice!)

in no particular order​

I would simply say that if an aiming system helps to improve ball-pocketing skills as part of an overall improvement of a persons skills, then I'm all for it.

We are definitely on the same page here.

... maybe you and I need to be in the same room to discuss this to fully understand what I'm saying. ...

I do hope we can meet some day. Any time you want to come out to Colorado, you are welcome ... I have plenty of room (and a pool table) in my new house. I'd be happy to put you up and feed you (that's my standard offer to people I do work with). If you want, we can film some demos and high-speed videos also.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Many pros use aiming systems. It doesn't necessarily mean they can't miss, they just make the ball more than aiming by feel.

We should be clear when talking about what we mean by "aiming systems." In this thread, our focus is on basic cut-shot aiming systems . I personally don't think "many pros" use the "aiming systems" that are often mentioned here (e.g., CTE, SAM, 90/90, ETE). However, I think there are many useful "systems" for aiming kick and bank shots, carom shots, frozen-ball shots, combination shots, etc. I'm not sure "many pros" use these systems either, but it is possible that "some pros" might benefit if they did. Maybe some pros would also benefit by using one of the "aiming systems" for cut shots also, but I personally don't this this would be true in general.

Regards,
Dave