Aiming B.S.

[ShootingArts]

Yes, that’s my point too. Visualizing the wrong line is no easier than visualizing the right one, and it adds the necessity of “adjusting”.

pj
chgo

There will always be adjustments. There would be far more elite pool players if there were a perfect system that required no adjustments. An impossibility if for no other reason the variables we face on the table, conditions of the table, balls, lights, room, complete environment.

The only place I disagree with the triangle is that the lines seem to converge at the pocket at the wrong point. We often don't want to shoot at the center of the pocket as the diagrams illustrate. Draw a line from the outside point to other outside point closest to the table, find the centerpoint of that line, then have the legs of the triangle converge there for maximum margin of error on both sides. Of course if you want more margin on one side you can make adjustments from there but the basic triangle seems to be starting off at the wrong point. Of course other systems have their own flaws.

When waving sticks around, holding one parallel and moving it back and forth between cue ball and object ball lets you actually see contact points before adjustments. Can be very effective on tough angles.

An aiming forum with the three deadly letters banned seems to serve little purpose, not that unbanning them seems to matter. A friend uses them and improved a game he had grooved in for decades. Tried to teach it to me over and over but I have spent decades seeing things my way and simply don't see in a way that allows that to work. Fractional aiming seems to me like a simple and elegant solution. When I try it, I miss worse than someone on the table for the first time. My eyes are calibrated to see differently!

The issue of course is that our eyes don't see. To compare to mechanical instrumentation, they are like the sensor in the field. With a digital sensor it sends a stream of ones and zeroes back to the instrument that creates a result, similar to our brain. Obviously if we send the wrong signal to the wrong place or have the instrument calibrated differently we get a totally different readout! There are people that can see music, literally. Other odd crossings of the senses also. With sight and aiming it isn't as radical as having a thermometer hooked up to a flow meter but we do each come to see things on the pool table slightly differently. It took me over a month of nightly effort to build the backside of the cue ball I couldn't really see so I knew where the contact point on the cue ball was. The curve might be half round, it might have some compensations built in. Doesn't matter, it is my reality and works for me!

No perfect system for everyone and never will be. I think that is one of the attractions of pool. Many years ago there was a superspeedway stock car driver named Dick Trickle. One race, he found a crazy groove around the track. Blew away the competition. You would think everyone would swap to that groove. Not only did other drivers not swap to it, Trickle quit using it. "Everyone knew it was wrong!"

Hu

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There will always be adjustments. There would be far more elite pool players if there were a perfect system that required no adjustments. An impossibility if for no other reason the variables we face on the table, conditions of the table, balls, lights, room, complete environment.

Yes, but we don’t need a system that adds needed adjustments.

The only place I disagree with the triangle is that the lines seem to converge at the pocket at the wrong point.

The fact that it’s a triangle shows that it’s geometrically incorrect and requires adjustment in addition to those for “conditions of the table, balls, lights, room, complete environment.”

Why do we want to add needed adjustments?

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

You apparently make that work pretty well.

Those who can visualize a parallel line might do it a little more easily (without micro-adjustments).

pj
chgo

View attachment 861785

The reason this inaccurate version works for some players is because the cb's point (point #2) is on the opposite side of the cb from the shooter's vision, which means they aren't lining up the points so much as they are assuming they're lining up the points.

The same problem occurs when using the system in its mathematically correct version (the parallel lines you show). The cb's contact is not visible from cb address, so it all boils down to guesswork and approximations, until you do it enough times to successfully develop a decent amount of visual shot recognition.

 

[ShootingArts]

Yes, but we don’t need a system that adds needed adjustments.


The fact that it’s a triangle shows that it’s geometrically incorrect and requires adjustment in addition to those for “conditions of the table, balls, lights, room, complete environment.”

Why do we want to add needed adjustments?

pj
chgo

The question becomes are we adding adjustments or creating built in adjustments? Also, are the adjustments for this method simpler or more intuitive than the adjustments for another method?

My method is similar, equal opposites with a smidgeon of adjustments only learned through experience. Nobody is going to make any method of aiming work without that valuable addition of experience to make corrections that no book or instruction tells you when and how to make.

In the normal speed of hits on a pool table there is no perfect contact. With no perfect contact there is no perfect method to aim. Which leaves us working within the margins of error designed into pool equipment.

Years ago I tangled with old men. They weren't nearly as smart as me. I could have beaten them silly in discussion if forums existed then. The only thing they knew how to do was beat me silly on the table.

I watched a man who had never turned on a computer run eight racks. Nine out of ten or more of the people on AZB will never run eight racks. Who is smarter?

Hu

 

[Mensabum]

You apparently make that work pretty well.

Those who can visualize a parallel line might do it a little more easily (without micro-adjustments).

pj
chgo

View attachment 861785

What??? My apologies pj, but the #2 contact point you have marked is erroneous for this system. You'd miss the shot by a mile.

 

[Mensabum]

Hi! I included a similar point in one of my pool instruction books: aiming the center of the cue ball directly at the contact point produces too thick of a hit on cut shots, so adjustments are necessary.

I really like the use of the imaginary triangle, though,—it’s a helpful visual, especially since it aligns well with actual spatial relationships on the table.

You don't use the center of the cue ball. You hit the OB contact point with the CB contact point. Not center ball!! Of course you'd have to adjust if this is what you're doing.

 

[ribdoner]

You don't use the center of the cue ball. You hit the OB contact point with the CB contact point. Not center ball!! Of course you'd have to adjust if this is what you're doing.

wasn't the system being pimped to hi-heaven called CTE which i thought stood for "center to edge"

if using the edge of the QB how much is used, is it predicated on how thin the cut is, what if it's a cut shot and "english" is req'd to get shape ( which is often the case)

 

[Sheldon]

Aiming in pool is largely instinctive, like shooting a bow without sights.
Short of a mechanical cue with a sight or a laser on it, there's always going to be an element of guesswork and/or instinct/muscle memory, etc.
What the systems can do for you is get you close. Then through repetition and training, you can train your subconscious to duplicate successful attempts.
When you see the shot, and recognize it, and know it, you need to do nothing but drop down and stroke it. When you don't recognize the shot, a system might give you a better chance, but don't use it as a crutch.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

How to Aim is just that, if you Pool Fundamental are CRAP, your know how to Aim is nothing.

Building a House with Non Level Foundation, will just get you ac crooked home, and the more stories you add the worst it looks.

 

[Mensabum]

wasn't the system being pimped to hi-heaven called CTE which i thought stood for "center to edge"

if using the edge of the QB how much is used, is it predicated on how thin the cut is, what if it's a cut shot and "english" is req'd to get shape ( which is often the case)

You're just going to have to read my other posts or try it yourself. I can't hold everybody's hand and answer hypothetical questions. I'm done with this. Overdone. Try it. U Like it, use it. Don't?? Don't.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What??? My apologies pj, but the #2 contact point you have marked is erroneous for this system. You'd miss the shot by a mile.

My apologies backatcha, Mens, but you’re wrong by that same mile.

One more attempt to clarify: picture the two balls touching in their correct position - won’t their lines be pointing in the same direction? Are your lines pointed in the same direction?

pj
chgo

 

[dquarasr]

Hope this helps.
Take it to the table fellas!!
Posted w the utmost respect for those of you who are truly trying to improve!!
Good luck. Mensa.

I don’t see how this aiming method can work. Here’s why:

If you have a shot where the CB is 1’ from the OB, at any angle but straight in, the prescribed contact point, drawing a line on the CB to the center of the pocket, is at a particular spot.

Now move the CB back, say, 3’ EXACTLY ALONG THE SHOT LINE. Now the angle to the center of the pocket is different compared to when the CB was 1’ away. Therefore the prescribed contact point, based on the line to the center of the pocket IS DIFFERENT
from when it was 1’ away.

I dunno, but the contact points on the OB and CB SHOULD NOT CHANGE anywhere along the shot line. Would you refute that?

 

[Dan White]

The reason this inaccurate version works for some players is because the cb's point (point #2) is on the opposite side of the cb from the shooter's vision, which means they aren't lining up the points so much as they are assuming they're lining up the points.

The same problem occurs when using the system in its mathematically correct version (the parallel lines you show). The cb's contact is not visible from cb address, so it all boils down to guesswork and approximations, until you do it enough times to successfully develop a decent amount of visual shot recognition.

Yes, and mensabum should realize that nobody is trying to attack him. It's just that some us are sticklers for knowing the exact geometry and what is really happening on the table. It can still be an effective method for beginners because, like, you said, you can't aim the far side of the ball with much accuracy but it gives a consistent and easy procedure to get you close.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...some us are sticklers for knowing the exact geometry and what is really happening on the table.

Pointing out when a system is being incorrectly described isn't being a stickler - it's a courtesy to readers.

pj
chgo

 

[Mensabum]

My apologies backatcha, Mens, but you’re wrong by that same mile.

One more attempt to clarify: picture the two balls touching in their correct position - won’t their lines be pointing in the same direction? Are your lines pointed in the same direction?

pj
chgo

Pj, I'm done with this. All answered out. Feels like I've been trying to count how many angels are on the head of an aiming pin and I'm finished with this.
It's there for the taking.
I suggest players try it if they're having difficulty with other systems.
They will know very soon if this works for them or not.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Thank for the back n forth.
It's been a gas.

 

[Mensabum]

My apologies backatcha, Mens, but you’re wrong by that same mile.

One more attempt to clarify: picture the two balls touching in their correct position - won’t their lines be pointing in the same direction? Are your lines pointed in the same direction?

pj
chgo

Hypotheticals. Don't deal in those.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

The TERM Aiming BS, brings one thing to mind, PerfectAim DVD, it was BS IMHO.

 

[darkSIDEpool]

There are too many aiming systems I think. Each have their own benefits and each can suit one player better than another.

However, once a player is experienced enough they can just play on feel and get down and know where to hit the right place without even looking at the pocket. They just know where to hit it automatically.

When a player is at that level other things become more interesting to focus on like consistency and mental aspects of the game.

 

[Oikawa]

The reason this inaccurate version works for some players is because the cb's point (point #2) is on the opposite side of the cb from the shooter's vision, which means they aren't lining up the points so much as they are assuming they're lining up the points.

The same problem occurs when using the system in its mathematically correct version (the parallel lines you show). The cb's contact is not visible from cb address, so it all boils down to guesswork and approximations, until you do it enough times to successfully develop a decent amount of visual shot recognition.

This is the best answer so far. The system presented is clearly geometrically inaccurate, which has been shown multiple times. Yet, I don't think anyone has reasons to doubt that it works for Mensabum, so then the question becomes why it works for him if it's geometrically inaccurate. And the answer, just like BC21 said it, is that they aren't lining up the points so much as they are assuming they're lining up the points.

"Close enough" aiming systems (e.g. CB center -> OB contact point or the one presented by Mensabum) even if wrong on paper, can work well if the player learns the required adjustments over time. The deceiving part is that the player might not realize that this experience-based subconscious correction is taking place, and therefore assume that the system works perfectly without correcting for the flaws. Then they might go share that system with others, and are baffled when the majority calls them out for the system being wrong. This is what has happened here, it clearly works for Mensabum and no one has reasons to doubt that, but there is no reason to discuss further if the system works in general, as it clearly doesn't. It's a "close enough" system, as is evident to anyone by analyzing the illustrations.

If someone is looking for a new aiming system to try, there is no reason to start with a flawed one. Parallel lines (https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/aiming/contact-point/) is almost the exact same thing as the one presented by Mensabum, except that it's geometrically accurate. Of course you still need the experience-based adjustments no matter the system (these aiming systems are just baselines, not accounting for throw/swerve/squirt etc.), so you can get away with almost any system in the long run once you learn the adjustments (including Mensabums), but there is just absolutely no reason to select it, when there exists a very similar one that isn't flawed and is already well known.

If Mensabum has played with it for a long time and it's second nature to him + gives good results, there is no reason for him to change it. Yet, that is not a reason for others to use it, given the reasons stated above. I can't think of a single reason why this flawed one would produce better results over the long run than the parallel lines system. Whether such systems are good in the first place is an entirely different discussion, but if one finds them useful, definitely use the geometrically accurate ones.

 

[Mensabum]

This is the best answer so far. The system presented is clearly geometrically inaccurate, which has been shown multiple times. Yet, I don't think anyone has reasons to doubt that it works for Mensabum, so then the question becomes why it works for him if it's geometrically inaccurate. And the answer, just like BC21 said it, is that they aren't lining up the points so much as they are assuming they're lining up the points.

"Close enough" aiming systems (e.g. CB center -> OB contact point or the one presented by Mensabum) even if wrong on paper, can work well if the player learns the required adjustments over time. The deceiving part is that the player might not realize that this experience-based subconscious correction is taking place, and therefore assume that the system works perfectly without correcting for the flaws. Then they might go share that system with others, and are baffled when the majority calls them out for the system being wrong. This is what has happened here, it clearly works for Mensabum and no one has reasons to doubt that, but there is no reason to discuss further if the system works in general, as it clearly doesn't. It's a "close enough" system, as is evident to anyone by analyzing the illustrations.

If someone is looking for a new aiming system to try, there is no reason to start with a flawed one. Parallel lines (https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/aiming/contact-point/) is almost the exact same thing as the one presented by Mensabum, except that it's geometrically accurate. Of course you still need the experience-based adjustments no matter the system (these aiming systems are just baselines, not accounting for throw/swerve/squirt etc.), so you can get away with almost any system in the long run once you learn the adjustments (including Mensabums), but there is just absolutely no reason to select it, when there exists a very similar one that isn't flawed and is already well known.

If Mensabum has played with it for a long time and it's second nature to him + gives good results, there is no reason for him to change it. Yet, that is not a reason for others to use it, given the reasons stated above. I can't think of a single reason why this flawed one would produce better results over the long run than the parallel lines system. Whether such systems are good in the first place is an entirely different discussion, but if one finds them useful, definitely use the geometrically accurate ones.

Somebody please pop a cap in this and put it out of its misery!!