Aiming by feel: The rest of the story

[JoeW]

I do not know if this will help Jim but I have always thought of "aiming" as a multivariate process. Pocketing is only one aspect of making a shot that results in good position. One must aim the stick, power, english, deflection, and sometimes swerve simultaneously.

I think that stand up aiming allows for a better perspective on all of these variables at one time. Of course some shots are quite simple. None-the-less one has to decide what to leave out as well as what to include.

I suspect that a player quickly learns that it is about hitting one of several contact points correctly. That is, one can cut "thicker" with outside english. In this sense there are two possible contact points or the margin of error is larger with one versus another type of technique. I suspect the subconscious takes all of these variables into consideration during the "aiming" process.

With stand up aiming one is looking at the intended lines of travel and then deciding, "How shall I do that?" given several optional ways to send the OB down a line with or without something like "throw."

Given the many possibilities we are into the art of pocket billairds and there may be more than one way to hit a smaller or larger contact point to drive a ball to a pocket and get position.

Thanks for the tip PJ. I will give it a try.

 

[David Beck]

After reading PoSM, Inner Game of Tennis, and The Science of Pocket Billiards, I'm not so sure that conscious control is the best technique for aiming. It seems to me that giving yourself a place to start (CTE/Ghost Ball/Contact Point/Etc) and a clear picture of what the complete shot should look like, and then adjusting, and stroking, by "feel", would be the optimum approach. Of course we also have to add in mechanics and perception and alignment and Quiet Eye.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

One thing I really admire about you Dave is your willingness to learn. I'm very impressed that you drove 10 hours to take a lesson from Joe Tucker. That's dedication to improvement!

I would have driven 20 hours for that info. I haven't stuck to the rack in over a year and I almost always have a shot after my break shot. Joe's the nuts.

 

[JoeW]

For those who do not know her work here is a link to Prof. Joan Vickers' web site. I think she has made a significant and seminal contribution to sports psychology that has many uses, especially to those of us who play pool.

quieteyesolutions.com

 

[smoooothstroke]

Good drill

I just finished running a few racks using UnknownPro's one stroke shooting. It may be the ultimate feel technique. After the first two racks, which were uncomfortable, my ball pocket percentage nearly doubled. Here is why.

If you know you only get one stroke you really concentrate on the aim lines while standing up. As you bend over all you are watching is the aim lines. There is no time to think about the stroke so all you can do is check to be sure your tip is where it should be. One stroke lets you verify the tip placement and then it is all over.

There is no time to think about the stroke. All of your attention is on the contact point. In this way the subconscious is in control of the stroke. The resulting position was much better than when I use my usual approach.

All I can say is give it a try for a few racks and you may be as amazed as I was at how well you do and how easy it is to turn the shot makng over to the subconscious. A great technique. Now I have to figure out how to use this in a match.

I know there is a part of me that will want more control in a critical situation but it may be that more conscious control leads to more misses -- Hmmmmm

I can see from the brief description given by UnknownPro that he has taught me to aim, really aim, while I am standing up. This was great advice.

I normally take many MANY practice strokes when playing.As I have noticed my stroke getting wobbly and crooked,I began doing a 1 stroke drill.I have not tried it in a match but it is a good drill.It seems to me that all those "practice" strokes-while they help ensure that everything is in line and allow me to see the shot working-may be detrimental to a straight shooting motion.This is because you end up stopping the cue short of the cb witch is not a full shooting stroke.Also it can create a bit of a side to side motion on both ends of the stroke.

This is just an observation I have made and I do not claim that practice strokes are bad!

 

[smoooothstroke]

get down

I'm confused about something.

I attempt to aim as precisely as I can while I'm standing but when I get down on the shot I often see that it needs just a little tweaking.

I've read that if the aim needs to be changed that the shooter should get up and aim again. NO tweaking?

I"m not sure I understand what is meant by "don't change the aim once you're down", or... "if the aim's not right I get up". Does that mean no tweaking at all? It's either on or off and you have to get up?

On some shots I like to first look by squatting down until my eyes are just above table level.From there it is easy to see the shot including the angle the cb will leave the object ball.This is where I really see shots the best.

Next I stand behind the cb,see the pocket,see the ob,see the ob to the pocket.If I am shooing well I can get down on the shot lining up where I want on the cb and just shoot at the ob.

 

[Big C]

I agree that the one stroke technique can help with accuracy as it makes you focus. I also believe that by taking too many warm up strokes that you can induce fatigue and mechanical errors will surface. What I like to do is stand behind the shot to see the angle and air pump the cue to feel the speed of the shot. Then I step into the shot, bend down to a mid point to get a closer look at the shot. If I like what I see then I come all the way down to address the cue ball. From there, I get the tip of my cue as close as I can to the cue ball and sight through the center. If I need to I will make micro adjustments until I feel comfortable. All I am doing now is making a few mini strokes, 2-3 before coming to rest. Then I pull the trigger, freeze in the finish position to observe the outcome and learn from my results. The whole time my focus is not making the shot, but rather going through my routine so that it feels familiar.

 

[David Beck]

For those who do not know her work here is a link to Prof. Joan Vickers' web site. I think she has made a significant and seminal contribution to sports psychology that has many uses, especially to those of us who play pool.

quieteyesolutions.com

I emailed Joan a few months ago to see what her thoughts were on QE relating to billiards. She sent me a study done by Mark Williams. I'll attach it here for anyone interested.

 

[Gerry]

I just finished running a few racks using UnknownPro's one stroke shooting. It may be the ultimate feel technique. After the first two racks, which were uncomfortable, my ball pocket percentage nearly doubled. Here is why.

If you know you only get one stroke you really concentrate on the aim lines while standing up. As you bend over all you are watching is the aim lines. There is no time to think about the stroke so all you can do is check to be sure your tip is where it should be. One stroke lets you verify the tip placement and then it is all over.

There is no time to think about the stroke. All of your attention is on the contact point. In this way the subconscious is in control of the stroke. The resulting position was much better than when I use my usual approach.

All I can say is give it a try for a few racks and you may be as amazed as I was at how well you do and how easy it is to turn the shot makng over to the subconscious. A great technique. Now I have to figure out how to use this in a match.

I know there is a part of me that will want more control in a critical situation but it may be that more conscious control leads to more misses -- Hmmmmm

I can see from the brief description given by UnknownPro that he has taught me to aim, really aim, while I am standing up. This was great advice.

this is pretty much how I play Joe.....ok, maybe I use 2 strokes, somewhere between Tony Drago, and Earl!

 

[JoeW]

Thanks Dave Beck. That was on my list of articles to retrieve from the library. I had read summaries but not the whole article. Here is a short summary of Williams, Singer, and Frechlisk's paper (referenced by Dave)

12 experienced players were compared to 12 non-experienced players for eye tracking the CB, OB and other factors. Experienced players played three times a week and had played in 14 sanctioned tournaments. Quiet Eye is the length of time the player spend looking at CB or OB (among others). It was found that experienced players spend about 500 milliseconds looking at the shot while less experienced spend about 300 ms. Both types of players spend less time looking when they miss.

Williams, et al concluded, "As proposed by Vickers (1996), the quiet eye period is related to the amount of time spent in the response-programming stage of the information-processing model and may serve as evidence that higher order cognitive processes control gaze behavior. --- Quiet eye duration appears to be a key factor in explaining differences in performance between and within each of the skill level groups."

Apparently, the player should learn to gaze at the targets for at least 1/2 second each. It would appear that experienced players do not jump from object to object but spend relatively more time on each object. It is thought that these longer gaze periods allow for cognitive organization preceding the needed hand eye coordination.

One of the things I immediately noticed in the one stroke practice session is that the mind spends considerably more time gazing at the shot than when using my previous routine. Prior research by Vickers implies that one can train for Quiet Eye procedures and that the results of this training is in evidence three years later. So it would seem that it is a good idea to learn to lengthen one's gaze with fewer eye shifts to improve one's playing ability. One's "feel" for the shot making will improve.

 

[maldito]

I too am not sure what it means to shoot by feel, though I know that to some extent this is what I do. I am trying to make the argument as clear as possible in order to see what other players who use "feel" think that they do.

I used to aim/shoot in a similar method - I would look at the object ball take a few stokes and fire away - I played a lot of 3-c - but where I live now there are no Billiard tables so now I play pool - but I now look where I address the cue - I pause before my final backswing (sorry can't work the pause on the actual backswing) but the best thing for me was to start visualization in terms of half/ball , quater/ball , full ball , slightly off/full ball etc. - I believe if I was to play 3-c again for a few months my original game would be much better because of this. I also make an adjust ment for my aiming point when using side spin.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Thanks Dave Beck. That was on my list of articles to retrieve from the library. I had read summaries but not the whole article. Here is a short summary of Williams, Singer, and Frechlisk's paper (referenced by Dave)

12 experienced players were compared to 12 non-experienced players for eye tracking the CB, OB and other factors. Experienced players played three times a week and had played in 14 sanctioned tournaments. Quiet Eye is the length of time the player spend looking at CB or OB (among others). It was found that experienced players spend about 500 milliseconds looking at the shot while less experienced spend about 300 ms. Both types of players spend less time looking when they miss.

Williams, et al concluded, "As proposed by Vickers (1996), the quiet eye period is related to the amount of time spent in the response-programming stage of the information-processing model and may serve as evidence that higher order cognitive processes control gaze behavior. --- Quiet eye duration appears to be a key factor in explaining differences in performance between and within each of the skill level groups."

Apparently, the player should learn to gaze at the targets for at least 1/2 second each. It would appear that experienced players do not jump from object to object but spend relatively more time on each object. It is thought that these longer gaze periods allow for cognitive organization preceding the needed hand eye coordination.

One of the things I immediately noticed in the one stroke practice session is that the mind spends considerably more time gazing at the shot than when using my previous routine. Prior research by Vickers implies that one can train for Quiet Eye procedures and that the results of this training is in evidence three years later. So it would seem that it is a good idea to learn to lengthen one's gaze with fewer eye shifts to improve one's playing ability. One's "feel" for the shot making will improve.

By the way, another benefit of one-stroking is that it forces you to look longer and more carefully at both balls.

I've often thought that it might be better to limit my strokes even during play, because it forces quick, intense concentration.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Could you please share at least a brief description (not an encyclopedia) of how alignment, bridge placement, pivoting, or whatever else you do with CTE is different for 25-degree cut vs. a 30-degree cut vs. a 35 degree cut (all fairly close to a 1/2-ball hit)? Assume the OB is in the same place for each shot. Only the CB placement is different (slightly) among the three shots. Also assume the distance to the pocket is large and the pockets are "tight, " so precision and accuracy are required.

The answer to your question is the setup for each of the angles your described is the same. Once the CTE line is determined and you set your body/cue, it is no longer important. Very rare is the CTE line and the aiming/shooting line the same - unless you actually need a half-ball hit to make the ball.

There's a LOT to CTE. At a basic level, I can describe it in a few sentences. At the highest level, it would take me pages to type everything.

Can you at least briefly state what is different with the three shots if the setup is the same? I'm not asking for pages of detail, just a few sentences explaining the basic approach of the system and how it handles shots of different (but similar) angles. If the setup is the same for all three shots, what is it you change or adjust, and how, and when? At what point is the angle to the pocket taken into consideration, and how? Again, I'm not asking for lots of detail, just an executive summary of the fundamentals of the system.

I know you don't think you are best person to expalin the system, but you seem to be a firm believer and successful user of the system. That's good enough for me.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Can you at least briefly state what is different with the three shots if the setup is the same? I'm not asking for pages of detail, just a few sentences explaining the basic approach of the system and how it handles shots of different (but similar) angles. If the setup is the same for all three shots, what is it you change or adjust, and how, and when? At what point is the angle to the pocket taken into consideration, and how? Again, I'm not asking for lots of detail, just an executive summary of the fundamentals of the system.

I know you don't think you are best person to expalin the system, but you seem to be a firm believer and successful user of the system. That's good enough for me.

Thanks,
Dave

I'm just saying it's not my place to educate anyone on here. The pocket is never taken into consideration, other than if the path to it is blocked. I never look at the pocket--it honestly doesn't matter. Look at any of my 14.1 videos....see if you ever see me looking at pockets ever.

My setup and execution is the same for each, like I said. In my mind, they're all identical shots. Aimed exactly the same, setup the exact same, executed the same. You're used to aiming without pivoting which is why you can't fathom this. The result of the pivot puts these shots in the hole.

 

[dr_dave]

Could you please share at least a brief description (not an encyclopedia) of how alignment, bridge placement, pivoting, or whatever else you do with CTE is different for a 25-degree cut vs. a 30-degree cut vs. a 35 degree cut (all fairly close to a 1/2-ball hit)? Assume the OB is in the same place for each shot. Only the CB placement is different (slightly) among the three shots. Also assume the distance to the pocket is large and the pockets are "tight, " so precision and accuracy are required.

Can you at least briefly state what is different with the three shots if the setup is the same? I'm not asking for pages of detail, just a few sentences explaining the basic approach of the system and how it handles shots of different (but similar) angles. If the setup is the same for all three shots, what is it you change or adjust, and how, and when? At what point is the angle to the pocket taken into consideration, and how? Again, I'm not asking for lots of detail, just an executive summary of the fundamentals of the system.

My setup and execution is the same for each, like I said. In my mind, they're all identical shots. Aimed exactly the same, setup the exact same, executed the same. You're used to aiming without pivoting which is why you can't fathom this. The result of the pivot puts these shots in the hole.

But how (not details, just general concepts) do you pivot to change the aim for each of these shots? The final aiming line (or line of action of the cue) must be different for each of these shots to pocket them (assuming a center-ball hit on the CB). I just want to know what is done differently to create the three different lines of aim? It sounds like it is the pivot that is different. OK, what is different about the pivot, and what guides you as you pivot, and how is it different for the three shots described?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

But how (not details, just general concepts) do you pivot to change the aim for each of these shots? The final aiming line (or line of action of the cue) must be different for each of these shots to pocket them (assuming a center-ball hit on the CB). I just want to know what is done differently to create the three different lines of aim? It sounds like it is the pivot that is different. OK, what is different about the pivot, and what guides you as you pivot, and how is it different for the three shots described?

Thanks,
Dave

The same procedure results in different aiming lines. Identifying the CTE line is merely the foundation - the start of the procedure. The final result, post-pivot, is a different aiming line for each - the right one. It's not a felt thing. It's not to say there's zero feel involved... there's feel in every aspect of pool. Your contact point changes because your CTE angle in relation to the pocket changes.

I think all I'm saying is CTE requires less perception and feel than any other form of aiming. Otherwise, I'd do something else.

Edit:

If there's anyone who can do the geometric proof, I suspect it's you. I know every aspect of the system and I know it works unbelievably well. I have no clue why everything "goes" --- even extreme "fliers." After all, there are numerous top-20 players in the world play exclusively with it-- so it has to work. Nobody knows why. There's the conundrum. I would love to see you do the math, but it's not my place.

 

[dr_dave]

Could you please share at least a brief description (not an encyclopedia) of how alignment, bridge placement, pivoting, or whatever else you do with CTE is different for a 25-degree cut vs. a 30-degree cut vs. a 35 degree cut (all fairly close to a 1/2-ball hit)? Assume the OB is in the same place for each shot. Only the CB placement is different (slightly) among the three shots. Also assume the distance to the pocket is large and the pockets are "tight, " so precision and accuracy are required.

The same procedure results in different aiming lines. Identifying the CTE line is merely the foundation - the start of the procedure. The final result, post-pivot, is a different aiming line for each - the right one.

I understand these claims and what they imply. What I don't understand are the basics of how the pivoting is done and how it is different for each of the three cut angles. In the end, the shot aim is determined by exactly where you place you bridge hand (assuming a center-ball hit). So something in the procedure must guide you as to where you place your bridge hand based on the required angle of the shot. Could you briefly explain how this works?

It's not a felt thing. It's not to say there's zero feel involved... there's feel in every aspect of pool. Your contact point changes because your CTE angle in relation to the pocket changes

This is the first I have heard about the relation between the CTE line and the cut angle to the pocket. At what point is this taken into consideration, and how?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It's not taken into consideration. I was just explaining why the same procedure results in different contact points for the 3 shots.

I don't even worry about my bridge hand. I pivot while standing above the shot, before I even touch the cloth.

 

[dr_dave]

It's not taken into consideration. I was just explaining why the same procedure results in different contact points for the 3 shots.

I don't even worry about my bridge hand. I pivot while standing above the shot, before I even touch the cloth.

Please refer back to all of my previous questions. I still feel like none of them have been answered; although, I appreciate you trying. I still don't have a clue about how the procedure results in different lines of aim for the 3 shots, especially if the angle to the pocket isn't taken into consideration (visually or otherwise). Again, please try to provide direct and straightforward answers to my simple questions. Again, I don't need an encyclopedia. I just want to know how CTE is supposed to work in principle for the 3 shots I've described. I still don't have a clue.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JimS]

Well Dr Dave, excuse me for jumping in here, but you are being guilty of hijacking this thread to AGAIN insist that somebody, anybody, explain to yoiur satisfaction how this or that aiming system works.

How about you either give it a rest or start another thread, or go to Stan's place and learn his system first hand?

Thanks.