Aiming ain't Easy, Angles ain't so Hard!

[Colin Colenso]

I've been debating in the aiming thread and I believe there is an important reason for the confusion in aiming systems. The fact is, most you players cannot aim well.

Simple proof, go line up a dead straight shot from baulk line on a snooker table and pot balls from the center spot into the corner. Maybe a few of the pros here could get 25 out of 50, but I guess the Houliites would be lucky to make 15 out of fifty.

At my best I could average 35 out 50 and the top pro snooker players can average around 40-45 out of 50.

I'm not making this point to be arrogant, but because I believe snooker players can aim more accurately than pool players...a fair assumption right?

The reason I bring this up, is to make a point about aiming vs determining angle. Even the very accurate pro snooker players can see the exact aiming point required, but struggle to hit this. Most of their misses come from poor alignment, not poor angle judgement. They don't miss much, but when they do, 80% of the time it is an alignment problem, not an angle problem.

So, on to the aiming systems being promulgated here!

All are based on the assumption of some kind of aiming point, and some way of manouvering from this point to determing or manufacture the correct potting angle.

I propose that judging the angle is not nearly as hard as actually aligning to the point of aim that is being suggested. That if you could aim accurately you would quickly learn o hit thinner or thicker to determine the required potting angle.

Now, to make a point, look at the diagram below and think about where the 9-ball would go to, based on the trajectory of the cue ball that is shown moving toward it. Will it hit the black mark or left or right of it?

 

[drivermaker]

I'm not making this point to be arrogant, but because I believe snooker players can aim more accurately than pool players...a fair assumption right?


Now, to make a point, look at the diagram below and think about where the 9-ball would go to, based on the trajectory of the cue ball that is shown moving toward it. Will it hit the black mark or left or right of it?

Maybe they can aim better and maybe they're just more used to wielding a light cue with a tiny tip at small balls for more years and have developed a straight stroke for long tables.

Because of your shitty stroke and inadvertant english that you put on the CB, it looks like the last illustration of the CB still has a lot of rotation on it from left hand english and will throw the 9-ball into the pocket.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Now the point I paused that post, and asked you all to look at that picture, is to make you consider how it is the mind most naturally works to determine angles.

If you're like me, you looked at the balls and imagined where the 9 ball would travel to and found it was pretty close to the little black dot, maybe a small amount left or right of it, but not more that a pocket width.

Now answer the next part honestly!!!

Did you try to extrapolate where the 9 ball would hit based on a ghost ball image, or a contact point? Or did you just feel it should go toward a direction based on the positions?

I believe the second explanation is more accurate and more intuitive. If you agree with this, then I suggest you consider the intuitive / feel method over the aiming systems that have been discussed here recently.

I believe for high level accuracy in playing, you need to improve your ability to align accurately. Once you have accomplished this, then angle judgement will become intuitive with practice and memorization of angles. Potting will become a matter of feel, rather than a complex aiming system.

Would appreciate readers sharing their thoughts on this matter.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Maybe they can aim better and maybe they're just more used to wielding a light cue with a tiny tip at small balls for more years and have developed a straight stroke for long tables.

Because of your shitty stroke and inadvertant english that you put on the CB, it looks like the last illustration of the CB still has a lot of rotation on it from left hand english and will throw the 9-ball into the pocket.

haha... u crack me up DM

Hope you can see why I'm making this approach though. Just a different angle at trying to understand things. (pardon the pun)

 

[drivermaker]

Or did you just feel it should go toward a direction based on the positions?

Would appreciate readers sharing their thoughts on this matter.

Colin...what makes you think that setting up with the "positions" isn't a whole part of it to begin with? What you illustrated was from an overhead view.
If you were at slate or ball level, you would see that as possibly a center to edge shot. What the hell is the difference if you just set up that way in your aiming, which is what it's about.

 

[Rod]

I've been debating in the aiming thread and I believe there is an important reason for the confusion in aiming systems. The fact is, most you players cannot aim well.

I happen to agree, but then what else is new?



Now, to make a point, look at the diagram below and think about where the 9-ball would go to, based on the trajectory of the cue ball that is shown moving toward it. Will it hit the black mark or left or right of it?

What is this some sort of swerve shot? The c/balls are not in alignment. Even a one eyed dog can see that. At any rate it appears to be left however we don't aim that way. Overhead that is. What do you use a ladder? LOL

Rod

 

[Colin Colenso]

What is this some sort of swerve shot? The c/balls are not in alignment. Even a one eyed dog can see that. At any rate it appears to be left however we don't aim that way. Overhead that is. What do you use a ladder? LOL

Rod

Get glasses dude!

Do a screenshot and make a line through the white balls. They are very close to perfectly alligned.

The 9 ball is not supposed to be in line...and yes, it probably would line up left of the spot I drew, but the spot was never meant to be exact, just a guide to help you get the point that you judge the angle intuitively, not by joing points or imagining ghost balls.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin...what makes you think that setting up with the "positions" isn't a whole part of it to begin with?

Not sure exactly what ou mean re: positions. But the aiming systems HH and Fred have been talking about focus on the contact point being aligned to the cue stick.

What you illustrated was from an overhead view.
If you were at slate or ball level, you would see that as possibly a center to edge shot. What the hell is the difference if you just set up that way in your aiming, which is what it's about.

I'd draw a level view if I could but it ain't so easy. They point is, that when we get a clear view down the line of a ball travelling toward another ball, and experienced player can very accurately predict where the soon to be hit ball will be deflected to.

Surely you've watched games where you've seen early that a ball is heading for another ball in the direction that it will knock that ball in, or scratch from it, much earlier than the rest of the crowd who don't know their angles.

My point is that you don't connect lines or see contact points when you predict this, it is simple intuitive. And that is my whole point. Angle judgement is intuitive. It's aiming that is hard.

 

[bruin70]

i understand where you're going with this,colin,,,,but the problem is that you're doing this with a 2-d diagram. were this a real life shot(or maybe if you were to flip the diagram north/south) i would have used intuitive feel. but looking at this diagram from this angle, i used the ghost ball because the diagram demanded it of me.

i have always had to come to grips with my alignment problems,,,,and i found it starts with proper placement of the bridge.

 

[sjm]

Angle judgement is intuitive. It's aiming that is hard.

I've always believed this to be the case. Misses are, in my view, primarily about a) bad alignment relative to the chosen point of aim, b) speed and/or english different from that planned, c) problems with stroke fundamentals, and d) jumping up. Rarely, in my opinion, from choosing the wrong point of aim.

 

[Fred Agnir]

i understand where you're going with this,colin,,,,but the problem is that you're doing this with a 2-d diagram. .

It seems that everyone who clings to anti-Houle systems can't seem to get past this point.

Fred

 

[BRKNRUN]

I've been debating in the aiming thread and I believe there is an important reason for the confusion in aiming systems. The fact is, most you players cannot aim well.

Simple proof, go line up a dead straight shot from baulk line on a snooker table and pot balls from the center spot into the corner. Maybe a few of the pros here could get 25 out of 50, but I guess the Houliites would be lucky to make 15 out of fifty.

At my best I could average 35 out 50 and the top pro snooker players can average around 40-45 out of 50.

I'm not making this point to be arrogant, but because I believe snooker players can aim more accurately than pool players...a fair assumption right?

The reason I bring this up, is to make a point about aiming vs determining angle. Even the very accurate pro snooker players can see the exact aiming point required, but struggle to hit this. Most of their misses come from poor alignment, not poor angle judgement. They don't miss much, but when they do, 80% of the time it is an alignment problem, not an angle problem.

So, on to the aiming systems being promulgated here!

All are based on the assumption of some kind of aiming point, and some way of manouvering from this point to determing or manufacture the correct potting angle.

I propose that judging the angle is not nearly as hard as actually aligning to the point of aim that is being suggested. That if you could aim accurately you would quickly learn o hit thinner or thicker to determine the required potting angle.

Now, to make a point, look at the diagram below and think about where the 9-ball would go to, based on the trajectory of the cue ball that is shown moving toward it. Will it hit the black mark or left or right of it?

It's hard to tell exactly anything using the WIE table...It really only works for a general overview of a shot... However if you intend the center of the CB to hit the edge of OB the shot goes in...

I still think that people get the misconception that people "blindly" use Hal's system...(perhaps after years thats all you need)

The way I apply Hal's system is this..(and you can use your diagram)...Pick what you see as the obvious contact point on the OB to pocket it in the corner pocket..(furthest point from the pocket)....Now....from the angle that you have diagramed you will see that if you aim the center of the CB to hit the Edge of the OB....What will happen is the actual contact point of the CB (which will be the closest point of th CB to the pocket AT IMPACT) will contact the "contact point" on the OB...Hals 3-line system is confirmed for me by the "contact points" and the contact points are confirmed by Hal's 3-line system....(for me they work hand in hand, but that is just the way "I" choose to apply it) The "confirmation" gives me the absolute confidence that I am "aimed" correctly...from there it is just "stroke execution" ...

I personally like being able to use the exact center of the CB to aim at a edge or 1/4 of the OB for aim....(I know that the actual contact points line up at impact)

Some people will prefer to aim the actual contact point of the CB to the contact point of the OB...I don't like that because now I have to know where that contact point on the CB is...(It sure won't be the center of the CB)

Joe Tuckers number system works that out for you...however I feel that the 3-line sytem is much easier for my eyes....(just my personal preference)

BTW....Ball pocketing is NOT my issue...You can give me your straight shot test, cut shot test, whatever all day long and I promise you will think I am a pro level player....

However when you see me hooking myself.... aka ....bad pattern play..........and weak safes.....then you will know what holds me back......

 

[Fred Agnir]

Not sure exactly what ou mean re: positions. But the aiming systems HH and Fred have been talking about focus on the contact point being aligned to the cue stick.

Sheesh. Give it up Colin. You can't read. Only I have been talking about Contact Point and Pivot. Hal doesn't teach this system often. He teaches other related systems (pivoting) as well as ball-to-ball relation systems. It's this type of oversight and generalization that has me disgusted in these threads. You're proving that you don't have the decency to read everything, yet you've certainly put a lot of answers out there.

Angle judgement is intuitive. It's aiming that is hard.

No kidding. THat's the beauty of the Houle systems. It makes aiming easier because you're using finite point to align and aim. I'm sure you missed all of that.

Fred

 

[drivermaker]

Not sure exactly what ou mean re: positions. But the aiming systems HH and Fred have been talking about focus on the contact point being aligned to the cue.

it is simple intuitive. And that is my whole point.

I don't think HH and Fred EVER talked about the CONTACT POINT being aligned to the cue. NEVER....NEVER...NEVER!! It was the AIMING POINT.
However that's only one method by using your cue.

What I'm referring to about "positions" is, aligning yourself, along with the CB and the OB to each other. In other words just seeing the center of the CB to the edge of the OB at setup, as a for instance. Forget the cue. Just the balls.

Can you please put into an words, the actual steps that you take and what you see when setting up to a cut shot...ANY cut shot...with the "intuitive" or "feel" method of aiming or aligning. What is it exactly that you're doing and seeing?

 

[bruin70]

It seems that everyone who clings to anti-Houle systems can't seem to get past this point.

Fred

i don't know the houle system, fred.....just remarking about colin's use of a diagram to prove his point. i'm not anti anything if it helps someone.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I don't think HH and Fred EVER talked about the CONTACT POINT being aligned to the cue. NEVER....NEVER...NEVER!! It was the AIMING POINT.
However that's only one method by using your cue.

Originally Posted by Colin Colenso
Ok, so you're aligned with the center of the cue stick and the contact point on the object ball.

Fred: Sounds right.
From- http://www.azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=16955&page=6&pp=15

What I'm referring to about "positions" is, aligning yourself, along with the CB and the OB to each other. In other words just seeing the center of the CB to the edge of the OB at setup, as a for instance. Forget the cue. Just the balls.

Seems you have multiple systems of aiming. Not that that is necessarily wrong, but I'd rather confront one at a time....for clarity's sake.

Can you please put into an words, the actual steps that you take and what you see when setting up to a cut shot...ANY cut shot...with the "intuitive" or "feel" method of aiming or aligning. What is it exactly that you're doing and seeing?

Sure, I see a picture of where the cue ball needs to travel to make the cut. I bend down, aligning to this and make the cut. No ghost ball, no contact point. The thing I pay most attention to is the angle the object ball must take to the pocket. The line I select for the cue ball is intuitive.

 

[Colin Colenso]

i understand where you're going with this,colin,,,,but the problem is that you're doing this with a 2-d diagram. were this a real life shot(or maybe if you were to flip the diagram north/south) i would have used intuitive feel. but looking at this diagram from this angle, i used the ghost ball because the diagram demanded it of me.

i have always had to come to grips with my alignment problems,,,,and i found it starts with proper placement of the bridge.

Interesting you used the ghost ball Bruin.

Tell me, when you're watching a game and you see a cue ball travelling toward an object ball. Do you predict where the angle of the object ball will go intuitively, or do you see a ghost ball and draw a line through it in your mind to establish that angle.

I grant, my ideal image would have been to have a video image of a cue ball traveling toward the object ball. My guess is most of you could have predicted the deflection line accurately without any thought of contact points or ghost balls.

 

[Colin Colenso]

It seems that everyone who clings to anti-Houle systems can't seem to get past this point.

Fred

Ok, I'm am anti-Houleite now

Fact is I disproved the theory you put forth diagramatically, and on the table which is what you requested.

It seems that everyone who clings to anti-logic systems can't get past this point

 

[DOCALLIDAY]

I've been debating in the aiming thread and I believe there is an important reason for the confusion in aiming systems. The fact is, most you players cannot aim well.

Simple proof, go line up a dead straight shot from baulk line on a snooker table and pot balls from the center spot into the corner. Maybe a few of the pros here could get 25 out of 50, but I guess the Houliites would be lucky to make 15 out of fifty.

At my best I could average 35 out 50 and the top pro snooker players can average around 40-45 out of 50.

I'm not making this point to be arrogant, but because I believe snooker players can aim more accurately than pool players...a fair assumption right?

The reason I bring this up, is to make a point about aiming vs determining angle. Even the very accurate pro snooker players can see the exact aiming point required, but struggle to hit this. Most of their misses come from poor alignment, not poor angle judgement. They don't miss much, but when they do, 80% of the time it is an alignment problem, not an angle problem.

So, on to the aiming systems being promulgated here!

All are based on the assumption of some kind of aiming point, and some way of manouvering from this point to determing or manufacture the correct potting angle.

I propose that judging the angle is not nearly as hard as actually aligning to the point of aim that is being suggested. That if you could aim accurately you would quickly learn o hit thinner or thicker to determine the required potting angle.

Now, to make a point, look at the diagram below and think about where the 9-ball would go to, based on the trajectory of the cue ball that is shown moving toward it. Will it hit the black mark or left or right of it?

They all will go ,just hit the right spot.

 

[Cane]

It seems that everyone who clings to anti-Houle systems can't seem to get past this point.

Fred

Fred, Didn't I tell you a long time ago that it does no good to try to convince a colorblind man that the sky is blue??? Those who have been properly instructed in this aiming method use it and pocket balls well, those who have not, or who right off the bat refuse to believe it won't work because they can't draw it on a piece of paper, will never be able to use it.

As for spot shots... LOL, I owned a 12' snook made in the 20's with #7 irons (if you know snooker tables, then you know that #7 irons are pretty damn tiny!). Since I play a lot of ring games, I used to practice one handed spot shots with 2 1/4" balls on that table. I shot probably 100 a day on it, not all at once... 10 at a time. I did it one handed from 6" off the head cushion, (a) because shooting one handed insured that I stroked perfectly and (b) because I'm a firm believer that if you can make 50% one handed, you should never miss shooting it two handed. Those of you that play in Ring Games know the importance of a spot shot. Hmmmm... I'd take that challenge. No, I won't make 50 out of 50, but I'll damn sure be better than 50% on the shot.

Damn, I miss that old table. Wish I'd just stored it instead of selling it, but just didn't have room to set it up in the house, ya know... hindsight's always 20/20...

Later,
Bob