Aiming by Fractions.

Everybody that you've singled out agrees with just about everything you said about fractional aiming - in fact, their main message has always been that fractional aiming is a reference system. Your disagreement should be with those who try to describe fractional aiming as an "exact" system with only three actual cut angles - that's who Bob and Dave (and me and several others here) have disagreed with.

Kinda makes me wonder if you've ever really read anything about it or if you're just trolling for controversy.

Not a particularly good beginning.

pj
chgo
 
You know ... reading about all these systems and completely eye popping rituals people try to go through before a shot is simply mind blowing!

It is a wonder that any of these people get better after calculating serious math equations and chinese arithmitic all the while focusing on their stance, stroke, head placement, what kind of tip do I use, is my stick an 18 1/2 or a 19 and will I play better using a 12 1/2 mm shaft or a 12.75? Aim ...Shoot!

Good lord people..... Practice! Put the time in! Try new stuff while PRACTICING! Did I mention practice? Don't cloud your mind with all this theory! Practice! I played 12 hours a day when I was young learning and PRACTICING! We allm start off in the world of suck.... I guarantee Efren sucked when he started! You know what.... he PRACTICED!

P.S. By the way ... the way to get better.... PRACTICE!
 
Last edited:
Whatever works for you, friend, use it in good health. Ghost ball does work, but not everyone can see the GB, and even GB needs adjustment for throw.

Fractional aiming works too, I suppose, if you are on small tables with loose pockets. I don't use it on 9-foot tables. It would be easy to PROVE mathematically it does not work on long shots on 9 footers.

Snooker players (10 foot tables, tiny balls and tiny pockets) definitely do not use 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 aiming. I laugh just thinking about it.

Just remember, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE ALWAYS OBEYED, whether or not we recognize, understand, or consider them when we hit the cue ball.
 
ShootingRazbone said:
You know ... reading about all these systems and completely eye popping rituals people try to go through before a shot is simply mind blowing!

It is a wonder that any of these people get better after calculating serious math equations and chinese arithmitic all the while focusing on their stance, stroke, head placement, what kind of tip do I use, is my stick an 18 1/2 or a 19 and will I play better using a 12 1/2 mm shaft or a 12.75?

Good lord people..... Practice! Put the time in! Try new stuff while PRACTICING! Did I mention practice? Don't cloud your mind with all this theory! Practice! I played 12 hours a day when I was young learning and PRACTICING! We allm start off in the world of suck.... I guarantee Efren sucked when he started! You know what.... he PRACTICED!

P.S. By the way ... the way to get better.... PRACTICE!
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that I need to practice more?
 
Shaft said:
Whatever works for you, friend, use it in good health. Ghost ball does work, but not everyone can see the GB, and even GB needs adjustment for throw.

Fractional aiming works too, I suppose, if you are on small tables with loose pockets. I don't use it on 9-foot tables. It would be easy to PROVE mathematically it does not work on long shots on 9 footers.

Snooker players (10 foot tables, tiny balls and tiny pockets) definitely do not use 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 aiming. I laugh just thinking about it.

Just remember, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE ALWAYS OBEYED, whether or not we recognize, understand, or consider them when we hit the cue ball.
Click to expand...


Real Snooker players play on 12 ft. tables:smile:
 
Thank God. Another aiming thread. Things were getting REAL slow on here.

I have a good idea. Matthew, how about if you post a video of you pocketing balls using your fractional method so we can check it out to see if we're doing it right. Talk us through the shots.

There's an old thread somewhere called Colin's Potting Test - search that out - and record yourself shooting through the shot making sequence with your fractional system.

Regards,

Dave


Since your new... Here's the link:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=122451&highlight=colins+potting+test
 
Last edited:
It is interesting to me that the OP starts out with the 1/4 ball fractional technique and progresses to 1/8th ball fractional. Good progression. It is also good because it breaks the game down. I memorized(muscle) 4 then move to 8, ok. . .

Then I would throw onto that what other's have said about having to refine it further to be effective on larger tables and smaller pockets.

Ghost ball is ok, but it doesn't have a simple learn it effectively in a day point like 1/4 fractions.

I would say my knife slice method is really advanced fractional. That is there are an infinate number of knife slices which can be made. Just like fractional, you imagine where the edge of the cue slices the object ball.

Frankly from a teaching and wanting to teach stand point, I would want 1 hr modules with 8hr practice between modules.
Simple - full ball
Basic - 1/4 fractions
Intermediate - 1/8 th
Advanced modules -
1/8th fractional + fine adjust (like Unertal scope use in Marine corp - yardage +/- ?3 MOA of fine tuning available)
instinctive muscle memory aiming(relies heavily on your approach and centering down in your stance)
throw effects
aiming jacked up
etc.

So, now I will address the Efren reference. I believe Efren to be the best player in the world.(my opinion only, no flame war will change it.) . . .BUT, I believe by the way Efren goes to the table, that he is shooting instinctively. Yes, I may or may not be putting words in his mouth. I would say he approaches the shot knowing it will go in and does not calling out what slice or fraction he is hitting. I would also say he is not imaging a ghost ball. These guys approach on a line which stroked through will sink the object ball. I would say most(all?) pros are playing instinctively.

That is the end goal. . .to be able to remove specific aiming from your consious thought at the table.

Now, the system which gets you there, in a slump, is the right way to get back. So, a system is a good thing to learn.
 
Mathew, I think you maybe misunderstood some important bits of the aiming systems that Bob and Dr. Dave promote. You keep saying how wrong and out of touch their systems are, but the only time you reference their system is to say something about "there are only 3 cut angles". I can't even tell if that's really something either of them said or if you're paraphrasing or what.

I think either you read incomplete material, read something out of context, or misunderstood an important part of what they're trying to teach in their systems. While I don't use their system, Neither of these guys is going to come up with any system that is harebrained, halfassed, or runs against common sense.

I get a vibe that you're making it more personal than you claim too... "I mean for crying out loud nobody is saying there is only three cut angles, one of which will line up to the pocket yet you created that strawman arguement to back up your opinion without even understanding what it is you were critiquing."

Who is making a strawman argument? Both of them? What opinion of theirs is bugging you so much? What are they critiquing? It sounds like you saw one particular post that you really didn't like and strongly disagree with. It's ok to reply to that post and state your case (even if it's a dead discussion) because it might clear up for the rest of us what parts you're talking about it.

More fuel for the fire:
I don't really trust aiming systems, and I think at the end of the day all people shoot in fundamentally the same way. They ask their brain "have I seen this cut before?" ...if their brain answers "Yes, and I remember you hit it about this full when you made it in the past".. you line up and fire. If the answer is "No" then the next question is "well have I seen something pretty similar to this cut before?" ...and the response will be "yeah, and last time you cut that ball by this much" and the shooter adjusts accordingly.

When facing an unusual cut angle, I don't find anything especially wrong with the ghost ball, I think it's easier to just mentally condense it to "what point do I need to hit" and then imagine the backside of the cue ball and making it touch that point. Visualizing an actual ball there is not all that helpful as it's tricky enough visualizing the contact point without making your imagination flesh out an imaginary ball touching that contact point.
 
nksmfamjp said:
It is interesting to me that the OP starts out with the 1/4 ball fractional technique and progresses to 1/8th ball fractional. Good progression. It is also good because it breaks the game down. I memorized(muscle) 4 then move to 8, ok. . .

Then I would throw onto that what other's have said about having to refine it further to be effective on larger tables and smaller pockets.

Ghost ball is ok, but it doesn't have a simple learn it effectively in a day point like 1/4 fractions.

I would say my knife slice method is really advanced fractional. That is there are an infinate number of knife slices which can be made. Just like fractional, you imagine where the edge of the cue slices the object ball.

Frankly from a teaching and wanting to teach stand point, I would want 1 hr modules with 8hr practice between modules.
Simple - full ball
Basic - 1/4 fractions
Intermediate - 1/8 th
Advanced modules -
1/8th fractional + fine adjust (like Unertal scope use in Marine corp - yardage +/- ?3 MOA of fine tuning available)
instinctive muscle memory aiming(relies heavily on your approach and centering down in your stance)
throw effects
aiming jacked up
etc.

So, now I will address the Efren reference. I believe Efren to be the best player in the world.(my opinion only, no flame war will change it.) . . .BUT, I believe by the way Efren goes to the table, that he is shooting instinctively. Yes, I may or may not be putting words in his mouth. I would say he approaches the shot knowing it will go in and does not calling out what slice or fraction he is hitting. I would also say he is not imaging a ghost ball. These guys approach on a line which stroked through will sink the object ball. I would say most(all?) pros are playing instinctively.

That is the end goal. . .to be able to remove specific aiming from your consious thought at the table.

Now, the system which gets you there, in a slump, is the right way to get back. So, a system is a good thing to learn.
Click to expand...

My God. Put this comment into the "Pool Statements Hall of Fame". This is so right on, I'm in awe Mr. nksmfamjp.
TAP-TAP-TAP........SPF=randyg
 
Mathew said:
Im a little bit of a pool nut/geek and what I wanted to talk about is something that has been wrongly discredited by what I would call esoteric knowledge builders who oftentimes say things that are correct but have little to no value to you as a player and is completely the wrong way to play this game. People such as Bob Jewett and Dr Dave do fall into this category and your both in your own right intelligent people however you just don't know how to play the game, im sorry im just trying to be honest as it is how I feel when I read your stuff online and here on these forums which I've read for a long time.
Click to expand...

So you've been reading a long time and what you've learned from Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave is that they are arguing against a strawman version of fractional aiming? And your amazing contribution is to use fractions as a reference point?

Maybe you should start reading without your head up your ass.
 
Mathew said:
You got to ask yourself, why would the interviewer lie when he says after the bit I quoted "Efren Reyes, ranked #5 and winner of last month's Sands Regency title, further explains." - meaning he asked Efren and Efren concurred. So basically he's saying Efren said it himself and Efren must of told this also to another player. A magazine like that will have access to all the top players and he asked all of the famous players what they thought. I don't see how someone would lie about something like that. Its pool and billiard magazine and he's a reporter who's doing his job and probably plays a little bit of pool and might even be an 'ok' player (he's not amazing otherwise he would be on tour) but he's got no hidden agenda.
Click to expand...

The interviewer did not ask Efren. He asked O'Hare who asked Efren.
At the time when Efren's english was also more limited.
Now, if you really wanna know how Efren aims, you can call the owner of Stix, Cucamonga.
He'll give you the 7-ball then you can pay for lessons.
He's Efren's road manager when he gets here and they go back decades.
 
Neil said:
I just re-read that whole thread. Seems like the only one that took the WHOLE test and scored the highest score also used the fractional aiming method! :D:thumbup:;)
Click to expand...

I have nothing against fractional aiming;) That's what I used most of my life.
 
I may be wrong, but the quote you are using about the 3 line aiming is where they are infact saying that it takes more than 3 lines.

One of the many aiming systems out there states that you can use three points of aim for MOST shots, even this system says you will have shots that you need to use a different type of aiming.

I think you are disputing the same thing they are.

I think you would be suprised how may pros say they use ghost ball aiming, something you dismiss rather quickly. I used to have an article from Billiards Digest (I think) where they interviewed several pros, ghost ball was the most often mentioned if I remember correctly.

I think Bob Jewet has a link to this article if you would like to ask him for it :)

Your posts seem to be a little agressive to a couple of posters that have brought a LOT of great information to the boards. Some of Dave's posts contain tons of numbers, which can be overwelming at times, but I cant understand why anyone would appear to have anything against either one of them.

Woody
 
On a side note, one of the best instructional tools I have seen is Joe Tuckers Aiming By Numbers.

But Im sure you wouldnt find his information helpful either.

Woody
 
Taken from the article:

There you have it, the secrets of aiming from dozens of the top players who do it best.

But then again, is the secret really out? #2 ranked C.J. Wiley offers that you must aim before you get down on the ball by lining up correctly, of course, but adds that as far as his aiming method itself,

"There are certain things you don't tell.
Last time I wrote anything about aiming,
somebody copied it and started selling it."

I considered Chinese water torture, but
I don't think he would've cracked.
I guess the secret may still be out
there... somewhere.

I wonder what aiming method that might be :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top