Aiming methods are bogus!

[royuco77]

Okay, so this is a good post for those that say negative things about aiming systems or say things about aiming systems "confusing beginners." What about non-beginners wanting to improve their game and rote isn't doing it?

Big newsflash boys and girls: Efren uses an aiming system. And it (by rococo's account) was too complicated for him because he was just starting out. Do you think that maybe after getting a decent stroke (maybe through Pool School) that Efren's aiming system might not be too complicated afterwards? Isn't this where an aiming system might be a good thing to step in?

Fred <~~~ knows this post will go by the wayside, unread

yeah, a decent stroke would help, but i think the key factor in order to make the aiming system work is good visualization.

efren was cutting the object ball several ways in order to match the angle of the cue ball to the object ball. then cut it again in order to adjust for friction and english. it was hard for me at that time to visualize all these cuts happening. i mean, you really have to see (you really have to believe that you can see the cuts, even though the cuts are imaginary ) the exact spot you are aiming or else the shot will not go.

 

[drivermaker]

If I make an honest, objective assessment of why Mr Chao pockets bettter than Mr SJM, I think it's mostly because of a) better eyesight, b) better alignment of the body and the stroke for a chosen point of aim, c) better execution of the stroke, and d) better focus and concentration. I just have a hard time believing that Chao does a signifcantly better job of finding the point of aim than I do, even though, perhaps he does.

Hence, I am probably among the many that thinks they already have an aiming system and that it works, making it hard for me to believe that investing any significant amount of time in studying aiming systems would be time well spent.

There is absolutely nothing in your first paragraph that I can disagree with.
I think you're right on the mark.

But I do disagree with the second. Here's why.

A. Did you ever stop to think that there might be something better out there than you're currently use? That could be a good enought reason right there.
Now, if you'd have asked that same question to me 2 years ago, I would have given a resounding, "F*#K NO"!! Like many on here I thought that I knew all that there was to know about the subject, especially after playing for over 40 years and many at quite a high level. If you can make tons of balls and win money...what is there to know? Well... t'aint so McGee! There are better ways and they're also very simple, not complex. We just don't know all there is to know or what else is even out there.

B. I think an extremely good aiming system makes (b) and (d) in your first paragraph that much stronger in consistency, execution, and the ability to self diagnose when something is just a tad off.
As far as I'm concerned it's EVERYTHING that we really have the most control of that has the ability to change or affect the shot positively or negatively. Why not take maximum advantage of it instead of ignoring it's importance.

If someone asked me how I get from point A to point B on the table with my CB, I have no idea how to describe that or put it into words. I can't tell someone how hard I just hit it, whether I took something off of the stroke or added to it, how I decided the number of rails to play, or the amount of english. I DON'T even think about that for myself...I just do THAT function out of feel and hitting millions of shots.

But you damn well better be lined up correctly and aiming properly because it all affects and determines how the stroke is going to come off. You can't be crooked and try to apply a perfect stroke. It DOES NOT WORK!

 

[BRKNRUN]

I constantly see aiming method posts on all forums. What is the big deal about aiming? All you have to do is find the point on the object ball and make the cueball hit that point. All this "ghost ball" garbage is just another marketing ploy made by the crooked scammers that surround this game. Think about it. You come up with some new aiming system, write a book and sell the new "magical" aiming system to bangers. They'll never know they are being robbed. What a joke. It's like selling snake oil. Just make the friggin' ball.

That is a aiming method....

Some questions...

1) When you find the point on the OB...How do you know its the right point?
2) How do you "make the cue ball hit that point?
3) What part of the cue ball hits that point?
4) How do you know it is the right part of the CB?

IF your answer is FEEL...that's fine....but WHAT gives you the feel?

and if you answer "hitting a million balls" ....that's a system......a very slow and laborous stystem....but it's a system....

 

[Fred Agnir]

efren was cutting the object ball several ways in order to match the angle of the cue ball to the object ball. then cut it again in order to adjust for friction and english.

Not that I'm Efren, but this is what's involved in the systems we've been presenting. The various cut angles and how to adjust your cutline for various english is in these systems.

it was hard for me at that time to visualize all these cuts happening. i mean, you really have to see (you really have to believe that you can see the cuts, even though the cuts are imaginary ) the exact spot you are aiming or else the shot will not go.

Of course it's hard for a beginner or even more advance to visualize these cuts. That's one reason to follow a system like the ones we are presenting: because it is normally difficult to visualize the shot. By giving finite aimpoints, it takes the visualization distraction away.

Maybe you don't understand that his systems were an effort to help you get away from trying to "imagine" the cuts.

Fred

 

[JoeyInCali]

The 3 friggin' ball bit is classic...I love the phrase.

Maybe you should have learned from Efren...he uses an aiming system and has described it...is he wrong and an idiot?

You've been playing for 10 months? Great...another know-it-all newbie wannabe that currently is a name dropping groupie. Do you collect autographs also?

Efren uses a system besides knowing the "patama"?
I hope to see him today and settle this.
If I don't forget.
Btw, Ruyoco, the ghost ball aiming "system" is not a gimmick. Imagine the two balls colliding and envision if they line up to the pocket.

Joey~Not a groupie, just a friend of Efren's road manager~

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin ... Path A is the correct alignment. Where did
you get B, it is aimed into the rail. If you line up right
to begin with, there isn't a problem, IMO.

Nothing beats good ole 'trial and error'.

Now I have question for you. How many times do you
have to pass 'Go' before you realize you are in a Loop?

Path B is the line of aim to the contact point.

Of course it will miss. It is just a simple illustration that is quite illuminating to some who are told to aim at the contact point.

 

[alstl]

That is a aiming method....

Some questions...

1) When you find the point on the OB...How do you know its the right point?
2) How do you "make the cue ball hit that point?
3) What part of the cue ball hits that point?
4) How do you know it is the right part of the CB?

IF your answer is FEEL...that's fine....but WHAT gives you the feel?

and if you answer "hitting a million balls" ....that's a system......a very slow and laborous stystem....but it's a system....

I'm not a very good player but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion. There is no doubt that any good player has to have a system, they aren't just banging balls as hard as they can and hoping something falls.

I'll draw an analogy to baseball. There are some hitters who study the pitchers and their own mechanics and actually think about what they are doing at the plate, guys like Ted Williams, Tony Gwynn, and Pete Rose. There are others who just take batting practice and walk up to the plate looking for a pitch to hit. Over the long haul the guys who study what they are doing are more consistent because when fatigue sets in and their body and mind start to shut down they have the foundation of a "system" to fall back on. A guy who just hits by instinct has a harder time getting out of a slump because when things start to go wrong he has nothing to fall back on. What is he doing wrong, is he opening up too soon, dropping his hands, dipping his front shoulder? He doesn't know because he never thought about what he was doing right when he was hitting good. Their "system" of just walking up to the plate and looking for a pitch to hit can and does work for a lot of guys if they have enough talent but they tend not to be as consistent as a guy like Rose who had a refined system and played the same way all the time.

I know a lot more about baseball than I do about pool, but it doesn't surprise me to learn that a guy like Efren Reyes has a system given his consistent high level of play over a long period of time.


Now I'm going to go down into my basement and try to run 3 balls.

 

[Celtic]

Still, what you propose is a kind of system, just a simple one.

I just line up so that I feel the object ball will travel along a line to the pocket. It is largely intuitive, but it is still a kind of system as DM pointed out.

That is really getting pretty weak.

"well I just shoot the shot"

"OMG you use a cue to hit the cueball??? that is a system!"

You can call anything a "system" depending on how you want to define the word "system".

 

[Cane]

yeah, a decent stroke would help, but i think the key factor in order to make the aiming system work is good visualization.

efren was cutting the object ball several ways in order to match the angle of the cue ball to the object ball. then cut it again in order to adjust for friction and english. it was hard for me at that time to visualize all these cuts happening. i mean, you really have to see (you really have to believe that you can see the cuts, even though the cuts are imaginary ) the exact spot you are aiming or else the shot will not go.

You're dead on with this. I use the same basic aiming system that efren uses and in the beginning, visualizing the lines or cuts as you called them, was a little difficult. I did exactly what you said Efren said to do. I shot them until my arm fell off. Now, the difference is, that I shot them visualizing the lines so now I see them very well and have no problem at all with that particular system.

BTW, I have to agree with RandyG when he said (paraphrased), no aiming system in existence will work with a bad stroke. Stoke well, aim well, control speed, win money...

Later,
Bob

 

[onepocketchump]

I constantly see aiming method posts on all forums. What is the big deal about aiming? All you have to do is find the point on the object ball and make the cueball hit that point. All this "ghost ball" garbage is just another marketing ploy made by the crooked scammers that surround this game. Think about it. You come up with some new aiming system, write a book and sell the new "magical" aiming system to bangers. They'll never know they are being robbed. What a joke. It's like selling snake oil. Just make the friggin' ball.

Keep thinking that and you'll keep getting robbed by those who know them.

How do you find the "point on the object ball"? Whatever is is that you do it involves a method of doing it. That method is a "system" just like all the others. It is also more or less effective depending on it's geometric validity and whether it is consitently and accurately applied.

So, please tell us for free how to make the friggin ball?

John

 

[onepocketchump]

Roll-off, I couldn't agree with you more. I think aiming systems confuse beginners and slows down the learning process. The basic concept people must understand is becoming a good pocketer takes time. Your brain needs to learn how to do it. The best way, in my opinion, is to simply go for what you feel looks comfortable and allow yourself to make adjustments subconsciously.

I did this for 18 years and never got much better. After learning Hal Houle's aiming systems my game went up three balls. On top of that I had even more validation this week when a VERY good road player showed me the aiming system he uses, which he learned from Mark Tadd.

Did you ever wonder what it is that "they" know that you don't? I can tell you that I did. I often wondered why I felt like I was missing shots all the time that I felt I should be making. I was always in awe at the shots the top players would make with seeming ease. Advanced methods of aiming and lining up are just a small part of what "they" know that you don't. You can try and become a good player by the trial-and-error method all you want to. For me, I will stick to the systems that I used to ignore. Now the bangers can wonder how I make those tough (not if you have a good aiming system)
shots look easy.

John

 

[JasonDevanney]

I did this for 18 years and never got much better. After learning Hal Houle's aiming systems my game went up three balls. On top of that I had even more validation this week when a VERY good road player showed me the aiming system he uses, which he learned from Mark Tadd.

Did you ever wonder what it is that "they" know that you don't? I can tell you that I did. I often wondered why I felt like I was missing shots all the time that I felt I should be making. I was always in awe at the shots the top players would make with seeming ease. Advanced methods of aiming and lining up are just a small part of what "they" know that you don't. You can try and become a good player by the trial-and-error method all you want to. For me, I will stick to the systems that I used to ignore. Now the bangers can wonder how I make those tough (not if you have a good aiming system)
shots look easy.

John

Would you mind sharing these systems with us "bangers"?

 

[Colin Colenso]

Would you mind sharing these systems with us "bangers"?

Here's one:

Click your heels three times, then repeat the phrase "There's no place like home".

Actually, seems most these aiming systems are in fragments all over the boards.

When I get some time I'd like to list and classify them so they are easy available for linking. I also plan to add intelligent reviews from both followers and critics of the various systems.

For now, search back through the prvious few pages on the general board and you'll find several threads that give some explanations about some aiming systems with some links.

 

[drivermaker]

When I get some time I'd like to list and classify them so they are easy available for linking. I also plan to add intelligent reviews from both followers and critics of the various systems.

Also when you get some time I'd like to suggest that you get a full and complete understanding of how to perform some of these methods and actually TAKE THE TIME ON THE TABLE to work with them so that you can speak more intelligently about any and all of them. You should make this your next major project since you only seem to be at a 2nd grade level regarding all of the aiming systems that are out there, let alone how to use them.

 

[jjinfla]

If you aim at the contact point you will miss a lot of shots. Maybe the diagram below will help you to see this.

Read the entire article How to Aim!

Jimmy Reid has a pretty straightforward method for aiming. It is in his new DVD which is a copy of his 1991 Video. And that is the method that I more or less picked up on my own over the years. And makes sense to me.

In your drawing if the contact point on the OB is about 1/4" to the right of center then you would aim so that the contact point on the CB would be 1/4 inch to the left. If these two points meet then you make the ball.

Placing a ghost ball there, as in your drawing, would show these two contact points.

I believe balls are missed because players 1) just cannot hit the CB with their cue exactly where they aim, and 2) they cannot hit the OB with the CB exactly at the contact points. Yet, they all think they can.

I would speculate and say that 95% of the pool players cannot take a striped ball and send it down table without any wobble. if they can't do this then they are not striking the exact center of the CB with their cue and are putting english on every shot. And how many can place a thread at the end rail and hit it with the exact center of the CB?

And stay down while doing this? And stroke smoothly and straight?

So basically I don't think it is the aiming methods that are the problem as much as the player not being able to execute what he is trying to do.

Just too many variables.

As far as three rail, four rail and 5 rail kicks, all you have to do is aim at a spot on the wall about 10-20 feet from the table. Nothing to it. Just ask Jimmy.

But seriously, I believe that making balls is intuitive and learned by - making a ton of balls.

Jake

 

[Fred Agnir]

In your drawing if the contact point on the OB is about 1/4" to the right of center then you would aim so that the contact point on the CB would be 1/4 inch to the left. If these two points meet then you make the ball.

Here's the crux of this. This is "geometrically correct." Now, how do you find the contact point on the object ball, considering the big bugaboo: contact induced throw? By feel? By intuition? By experience? All of the above? None of the above? Don't worry about contact induced throw?

The fact of the matter is, even with double the distance methods like the above, or the ghost ball, the true contact point isn't the point opposite the center of the pocket. That is, the "theoretical contact point" isn't the same thing as the "true contact point." Or the correllary, if you hit the the theoretical contact point, the object ball won't go to where you were aiming. Adjusting for throw, the contact point is thinner than the theoretical contact point. But the amount thinner isn't constant across the range of cut shots. Therefore by intuition, guessing, or shear dumb luck, we as experienced pool players have been making balls.

There have been graphs of the contact induced throw over the past several years. And the two most recent and most thought-out don't agree with each other (Ron Shepard's and Dr. Dave). So, the science isn't going to give any help here considering the contradiction. And it's going to be the rare bird that figures how to adjust their aim using the graphs if there was an agreement. It's all good stuff, these graphs, but how do you apply it? If it was easy to apply, I'd go for it in a heartbeat.

Some people need to go beyond the guess work, especially on the tougher shots that aren't readily visualized.

Fred

 

[Colin Colenso]

Also when you get some time I'd like to suggest that you get a full and complete understanding of how to perform some of these methods and actually TAKE THE TIME ON THE TABLE to work with them so that you can speak more intelligently about any and all of them. You should make this your next major project since you only seem to be at a 2nd grade level regarding all of the aiming systems that are out there, let alone how to use them.

Now I would be the idiot some have claimed me to be if I didn't say I would gain more insights into the systems by actually spending time on them. I fully intend on doing that so I can give a more comprehensive analysis.

That said, if someone tells me they can make a 110 degree cut using left english, no masse, then I can make a diagram to refute it. Diagrams are relevant and very useful when used in its proper parameters.

There are many players who have played for 50 years and will tell you they line up from the ceter of the cue ball to the contact point on the OB. They can be proved wrong by a diagram, even by a b-grade math student who has never played the game. Some of these guys are very accurate players too.

Anyway, you get my point

 

[drivermaker]

They can be proved wrong by a diagram, even by a b-grade math student who has never played the game.

Anyway, you get my point

Yeh, but what grade are the b- grade math students in?

Anyway, you get my point.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Here's the crux of this. This is "geometrically correct." Now, how do you find the contact point on the object ball, considering the big bugaboo: contact induced throw? By feel? By intuition? By experience? All of the above? None of the above? Don't worry about contact induced throw?

The fact of the matter is, even with double the distance methods like the above, or the ghost ball, the true contact point isn't the point opposite the center of the pocket. That is, the "theoretical contact point" isn't the same thing as the "true contact point." Or the correllary, if you hit the the theoretical contact point, the object ball won't go to where you were aiming. Adjusting for throw, the contact point is thinner than the theoretical contact point. But the amount thinner isn't constant across the range of cut shots. Therefore by intuition, guessing, or shear dumb luck, we as experienced pool players have been making balls.

There have been graphs of the contact induced throw over the past several years. And the two most recent and most thought-out don't agree with each other (Ron Shepard's and Dr. Dave). So, the science isn't going to give any help here considering the contradiction. And it's going to be the rare bird that figures how to adjust their aim using the graphs if there was an agreement. It's all good stuff, these graphs, but how do you apply it? If it was easy to apply, I'd go for it in a heartbeat.

Some people need to go beyond the guess work, especially on the tougher shots that aren't readily visualized.

Fred

Fred,
Hopefully I'll change the tone of things by saying I pretty much agree with your insights here.

The contact point and ghost ball are kind of a guessing game.

btw: I suspect the variation in contact induced throw can be graphed linearly from 0 degrees on a straight in shot to several degrees of deviation at near 90 degree cut angle. I suspect many have assumed it has a bell shaped curve, but I have a reason for believing it isn't, which can wait for another time.

Anyway, even if we can work these out and adjust them for various conditions such as humidity and condition of balls it still requires some guessing of where exactly that moves the contact point to or the center of the ghost ball.

We can use a bit of outside english of course to counter this effect (approximately), but then we're left to account for CB deflection and perhaps even parallel alignment with the cue, depending on the system being used to align.

It is for these reasons that I changed to memorization by repetition. This develops a feel for what alignment or movement is going to make each type of pot.

Your system/s make these compensations for you, simplifying the process. (At least on many typical shots I'll agree the can be effective at this...but we've gone over that and should settle to agree to disagree at this point).

Different strokes for different folks. The game certainly can be a never ending learning experience.

 

[Fred Agnir]

btw: I suspect the variation in contact induced throw can be graphed linearly from 0 degrees on a straight in shot to several degrees of deviation at near 90 degree cut angle. I suspect many have assumed it has a bell shaped curve, but I have a reason for believing it isn't, which can wait for another time..

I always thought it was bell shaped, but Ron Shepard's graph wasn't.

Dr. Dave, who said there was an error in the Shepard's and Marlowe's equations showed a graph closer to linear.

Dr Dave's Throw Technical Proof


I think Bob Jewett's graph on actual measurements was something in between.

I'd go with the experimental data.

Fred