Aiming methods are bogus!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roll-Off
  • Start date Start date
Very nice diagrams, and some comments

Very nice diagrams, thanks for posting them.

On the left diagram, I'm not sure what the units are.

On the right diagram, which is very useful by the way, I believe that those lines should
really be less jagged. I have never seen anything in the domain of "pool physics" that
takes sharp deviations from a "natural flow". I am referring to the area between the 20
and 35 degree angle, for the medium speed. And, 45 degree point for the soft speed.
I realize how difficult it is to accurately obtain this data, and I commend you Bob for
your efforts. I would be interested in knowing for sure, if the "true" lines contain just
one curve as in the diagram on the right, or if there really is a dip near the end, as in
the diagram on the left. Anyway, this is great stuff, thanks again.
 
John Barton said:
I suggest you take a raw beginner and try to teach them how to play. I suspect that neither of you will get very far with "just make the friggin' ball".

All this "garbage", is merely different methods to arrive at the same conclusion. And that is being on the right and only line to make the shot. If a person can't get to that line consistently then they aren't going to making many balls.

The big deal about aiming is that it is essential to the whole point of playing pool which is to pocket balls. All the power draw in the world doesn't matter if you can't make balls. How many times have you thought you were dead on to make the ball and you missed? You were probably not lined up properly. That's aiming.

Snake oil? Nah. Magic? Nah. Different? Yes. Aiming systems are not "point and shoot". What they do however is train muscle memory so that you begin to instinctively see and get down on the right line to make the shot. Some people lock into this line without any help, they just see it. Others need to retrain their body and eyes to find the right line.

That's why aiming systems (methods) help.
Click to expand...

Hey John, if this reply to RollOff was made for his/her benefit I'll point out that he/she seems to be long gone, and may not read this reply to a 2005 thread ... but it was great to see some real DM posts !

Dave
 
whitey2 said:
... On the right diagram, which is very useful by the way, I believe that those lines should really be less jagged. ...
Click to expand...
As the label sort of says, the values plotted are actual data obtained on the table. Since I knew of no theory that could explain the shape of the measured curves, I had no smooth curve to offer as a fit to the measured data. Of course, it would have been better if I had plotted error bars on each data point, but the experiment would have taken quite a bit longer. The theoretical curves that should be compared to my data are in Dr. Dave's paper on the page after the page that includes his diagram above. (Dr. Dave's plot above is for a rolling cue ball while my data were taken for a stun shot.)

Here is Dr. Dave's theoretical curve for stun shots. The similarity to the measured data is stunning.
drdave.gif
 
John Barton said:
being on the right and only line to make the shot. If a person can't get to that line consistently then they aren't going to making many balls.

The big deal about aiming is that it is essential to the whole point of playing pool which is to pocket balls. .
Click to expand...

Good points, John. We teach students there are only two ways to miss a shot...you either aimed at the wrong spot, or there is a flaw in your stroke that prevented you from putting the cue ball where you were aiming.
If all you ever practiced was aiming, and developing a consistantly straight stroke, you would be far better than most players. Aim right, stroke right, pocket balls. Pretty simple concept, but not so simple to achieve.
Steve
 
aiming methods are necesary.

For most people aiming methods are necesary. Sure, 1 in 1,000,000 or so people pick up a cue and just instinctively know where to aim, and with enough practice can get really good. But they will come to a road block eventually that will require them to gain knowledge to get any better. The top players KNOW the game, if they can't explain it or they just say they do it by feel, they're shining you on or don't want to reveal their method.


Now spcifically talking about aiming. The biggest problem that most people make is not understand that there are two contact points and most people, (even some really good players as colin pointed out) seem to think that the CB contact point is on the front of the CB directly in line with the OB.

It's not. IT's actually on a parallel path with the line of the shot let me show you an illustration

CueTable Help




In this diagram, the the point on the opposite side of the one ball nwhere the red line passes through represents the contact point on the OB. The point on the front of the CB where the grewen line passes through represents the CP on the CB. The blue line represents the path of connection between the two points and the black line represents the aimline that is necesary to make the ball. If you combine BHE, a good fundamental straight stroke and follow through, and some experience with whole lot more knowledge and a WHOLE lot more experience, you might become a good pool player.

There are ten thousand ways to find the black line. The easiest accurate way is probably using experience and the ghost ball system.

The best is probably the tangent parallel system for most angles.

No aiming system is going to make you an over night sensation. I did however, using various aiming systems and a fresh pupil who wasn;t into pool until I started teaching him, turn a twenty one year old into a 9 in the APA and an A player using these "systems" in less than three years.

It took amazing dedication on his part though to achieve that.

If you're looking for the be all end all in a system. You're not going to find it, but if you're looking to become a top player, even locally, you better learn and practice with somw systems. Or you can be that Newbie wannabe that insists he's going to be the next Johnny Archer with two hours a day of practice using only his self and experience as a guide.
 
Jaden said:
... The top players KNOW the game, if they can't explain it or they just say they do it by feel, they're shining you on or don't want to reveal their method.
...
Click to expand...
Why do you believe this? If a 50-ball runner told you that he aimed mostly by feel, would you think he was a liar?

I notice over on Johnny Archer's web site, someone called Johnny a liar when he tried to explain how he aimed. I think that's a rather nasty thing to do to a pro on his own site.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Why do you believe this? If a 50-ball runner told you that he aimed mostly by feel, would you think he was a liar?

I notice over on Johnny Archer's web site, someone called Johnny a liar when he tried to explain how he aimed. I think that's a rather nasty thing to do to a pro on his own site.
Click to expand...


No I wouldn't call him a liar. I said that every so often a player will be able to just pick up the game from feel. I was a really good player before I ever learned an aiming system. But for most people, their game can and will be greatly improved if they learn and try all of the systems that they can.

The key to the game of pool is knowledge. Some people can eventually figure out that knowledge by feel or study. Most people can't and to put out that they don't or shouldn't do anything but practice and learn by feel does them a diservice.

No one told me how to play the game and I learned very few systems. In fact it was by accident that I found that truth about contact points while I was studying the game on paper geometrically and then when I started using it, it greatly helped my overall potting consistency.

I have found that improvement in the game of billiards comes in spurts or sudden increases in understanding or ability. Learning a new aiming system or banking system or pre shot and stroke routine can sometimes trigger those spurts of learning.

For the average player out there, they need to learn and try all of teh systems and methods and drills out there that they can, to find what helps their game the best, and after they learn a new one years down the road they need to go back and look at all of the other ones that they used in the past and try them again, because it might work even better for them once they have that additional experience and knowledge under their belt.

Hal is the one who called Johnny a liar when he described an aiming system that uses a similar method to what I illustrated on his website and I agree with you that that was probably uncalled for. I wouldn't do it. I was just stating in general that top players have knowledge of the game, regardless of how they got it and if they try to tell you that they could just always play like that, they're "probably, in most cases" either not remembering correctly or are just saying that because they've had difficulty illustrating what they mean to laymen in the past.
 
I wanted to add one other thing

You know, it seems that every time I post some information on here like the diagram and explanation I just did. The replies I get are about something that I state in my post and they usually appear to be taken out of context.

When I noticed Johnny Archer's statement on his website about how he" stands back three feet and looks at parallel lines", I realized that he was talking about the same aiming technique I discovered while I was down in Cuba. I just illustrated and explained the geometry behind that aiming technique and I get a reply about how I stated that people are liars when I stated nothing of the sort. That's why there is so much bad information going out there and people are confused about what to listen to.

I'm not meaning to direct this against you Bob. From what I've seen of your postings and know of your reputation, I'm sure you just saw a perceived afront to the top players and were defending them.

The reason that I'm adamant about putting out good information is that like I've told many times on this forum, Efren taught me BHE many many years ago and I never even tried because I though tit could never work, even though in my mind Efren is arguably the best player ever to hold a cue. I went completely by feel. Then when a buddy of mine Chip Klein told me about it again, I decided to try it and found that it works.

I know that there are many players out there that would like to be able to get good information so that they don't have to spend 10 or 15 years figuring out what the top players already know, or spend a lifetime and never find it out, so I try to give them good information.

Then you get people that don't know what the hell they're talking about that can't run more than four or five balls at most, spouting off at the mouth and those players that might be able to get some good info don't know who to listen to. It pisses me off!!!

So, I sometimes come off a little bit beligerant and I apologize for that, but it starts to get old after a while and that's when I take a six or eight month break from posting here.
 
Everyone knows the spot to hit on the object ball to make it into the pocket. The problem is hitting that spot. Practice, practice, practice. There is no other way.
 
A sraight stroke is a nessesity

Work on your stroke, nearly everone can target, delivering the cue ball to the target seems to be the biggest problem.


Everyone uses some sort of System to pocket a ball, namely where to put your right foot,(right handed) or your left foot (Left handed) this pretty much fixes one part of a tripod, with that information and the need to get the cue away from your body, you do this buy your left foot, if your right handed or your right if your left handed. then there is your bridge hand, whitch is the 3rd leg of the tripod. Most players extend the bridge hand down the shaft to keep it on line as they get down into thier stance. once your set really all you have to do is stroke straight. Most people say, if your confortable your stance is ok, I agree to an extent, your body needs to be relaxed and confortable, but does not interfere with the cue, in any way.

How you determine where to set up your body to place your cue on line with the target is a system. Most people try to adjust to a new aiming system while they are down into thier stance already, this may place your cue going across your body, or away, and they miss, and miss, and blame it on a sytem they read about. Focus on the foundation and pocketing will come, with shotty fundamentals, comes shotty ball making and all you hear is how this or that doesnt work. WHY DO YOU THINK going to an instructor helps? Id say alot of the time they spend is getting everything lined up so you can stroke straight...lol

Play pool at your own disgression, but if you want to be serious about the game really serious you better quit being so lazy and work on those fundamentals. If your not sure ask someone to help. BUT only if they can play and know how to address the table.


SPINDOKTOR
 
A lot of truth there, spin doktor.

Good fundamentals add up to being able to deliver the cue ball where you intend, with intended spin, anywhere on the table. The greatest aiming system in the world is of little value if you can't hit that spot fairly consistently. And that takes hard work that only you can do for yourself, and can't be transmitted like knowledge from these forums.

One way to check your fundamentals and find out if you need to step back and work on them before worrying about aim points is to remove aiming from the picture entirely, i.e. straight in shots. Set the balls up at various distances, usually object ball midway from cue to pocket and see if you can make it 80% of the time or more. Then try longer shots with cue further from object ball and pocket, then try the other case, cue and object ball close with pocket far away (unintentional sidespin can cause throw misses on these shots if you are not cueing in the center). Note if you consistently miss on one side or the other, if it is a lining up problem, or if you just aren't cueing in the real center axis of the cueball.

If you are doing worse than expected or less than you desire, you need to go back to fundamentals first before diagnosing cut shot problems that could be due to aiming, or could just be a mis-aligned stroke.
 
Fred Agnir said:
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
Click to expand...


The first question I ask....In these videos which show throw, Was the stroke performed level?
 
Jaden said:
... But for most people, their game can and will be greatly improved if they learn and try all of the systems that they can. ...
Click to expand...
I think lots of systems can be helpful with various aspects of play (having developed several systems myself), but the average student seems unable to look at a system critically. He cannot determine where it really applies or how it can be fixed up on the margins. Most people who present systems fail to point out the pitfalls.

Take for example a post above where the poster states that it is obvious where you have to contact the object ball. Of course the simple systems (ghost ball, inch-and-an-eighth, the Arrow, or any of 23 others), say to contact the point on the object ball farthest from the center of the pocket. Many people -- including, I think, the referenced poster -- still believe that bogosity in spite of the best efforts of many who have pointed out that you need to include the various kinds of throw. Some champions and even some confused instructors don't believe in throw.

Why do you need to understand a system's limitations? Let me give an example from my own learning. I learned to play primarily from Mosconi's "Winning Pocket Billiards." In that book he says that if a ball is frozen on the cushion, you want the cue ball to contact the ball and the cushion at the same time. That is false, and if anyone here believes it's true, they need more help than I think I can provide. But since it was Mosconi (actually, his ghost writer) who said that, I believed it. This was not a problem until I actually had an important shot where the object ball was frozen on the cushion. My vision and stroke were sufficiently accurate that I could actually send the cue ball to hit the cushion and the OB at the same instant when I was really trying to do so. Of course what happens in this situation is that the object ball is thrown into the cushion by collision-induced throw, it bounces out from the cushion, it hits the far point on the corner pocket, rattles back and forth, and hangs in the pocket smiling at you. You opponent is smiling as well.

It took me 15 years of play to figure out that Willie (actually, his ghost writer) was lying to me. The truth about frozen balls is now readily available -- see the extensive treatement in Koehler, for example -- but the old lie (myth, if you prefer) is also readily available.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Take for example a post above where the poster states that it is obvious where you have to contact the object ball. Of course the simple systems (ghost ball, inch-and-an-eighth, the Arrow, or any of 23 others), say to contact the point on the object ball farthest from the center of the pocket. Many people -- including, I think, the referenced poster -- still believe that bogosity in spite of the best efforts of many who have pointed out that you need to include the various kinds of throw. Some champions and even some confused instructors don't believe in throw.
Click to expand...

Bob, in light of that what do you think about Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers system? (I saw a review of yours about it but didn't address this.) I assume the numbers would just be used as a reference point and then you'd have to make adjustments for throw.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think lots of systems can be helpful with various aspects of play (having developed several systems myself), but the average student seems unable to look at a system critically. He cannot determine where it really applies or how it can be fixed up on the margins. Most people who present systems fail to point out the pitfalls.

Take for example a post above where the poster states that it is obvious where you have to contact the object ball. Of course the simple systems (ghost ball, inch-and-an-eighth, the Arrow, or any of 23 others), say to contact the point on the object ball farthest from the center of the pocket. Many people -- including, I think, the referenced poster -- still believe that bogosity in spite of the best efforts of many who have pointed out that you need to include the various kinds of throw. Some champions and even some confused instructors don't believe in throw.

Why do you need to understand a system's limitations? Let me give an example from my own learning. I learned to play primarily from Mosconi's "Winning Pocket Billiards." In that book he says that if a ball is frozen on the cushion, you want the cue ball to contact the ball and the cushion at the same time. That is false, and if anyone here believes it's true, they need more help than I think I can provide. But since it was Mosconi (actually, his ghost writer) who said that, I believed it. This was not a problem until I actually had an important shot where the object ball was frozen on the cushion. My vision and stroke were sufficiently accurate that I could actually send the cue ball to hit the cushion and the OB at the same instant when I was really trying to do so. Of course what happens in this situation is that the object ball is thrown into the cushion by collision-induced throw, it bounces out from the cushion, it hits the far point on the corner pocket, rattles back and forth, and hangs in the pocket smiling at you. You opponent is smiling as well.

It took me 15 years of play to figure out that Willie (actually, his ghost writer) was lying to me. The truth about frozen balls is now readily available -- see the extensive treatement in Koehler, for example -- but the old lie (myth, if you prefer) is also readily available.
Click to expand...




Bob, a sytems limitations is set by the player not the system.

YES throw and friction can frustrate anyone. and is likely a pit fall for a beginner, how hard you shoot also play's a huge role. but a player with some basic knowledge can overcome and adapt. For a visual referance Im going to use CUE TABLE with a shot that requires throw to work, but Im not going to tell you where to strike the object ball, I want to see if anyone knows how throw works first, that way I wont have to go into great depth with every example.

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4HALW4IALm1PAkp4dALm4dEOj1dbjp@

this is an example of using throw with center ball, (no english on the cue ball) your banking the 9 one rail, (keep in mind when you cut a ball the object ball will aquire some spin) I used this example because the english the 8 picks up from the cue ball from an angle throws the 9 to bank it one rail. Contact enduced throw.


http://CueTable.com/P/?@4HSRJ4PTsf4cSRJ4ccYt4kTsf4kRCv1uAAI@

On cut shots, if your hitting them thick, use 1/2 tip of outside english to the shot. THIN use a 1/2 inside english to the shot. this is like decreasing the contact point or increasing it. If you need more than a 1/2 tip, you need to work on your line up, some shot's require more but Im speaking in general. Basic pocketing. and not shooting real hard. My cue table example if made will require good speed, or it wont work. knowing the speed is a giant leap forward.

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4HHpI4PNCn4cHpI3cbSj4kNCn4kKKH4uBvM@

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4HNAw4PMUG4cNAw1cath4kMUG4kMsM4uAIL4vMsMhmg@




SPINDOKTOR
 
PKM said:
Bob, in light of that what do you think about Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers system? (I saw a review of yours about it but didn't address this.) I assume the numbers would just be used as a reference point and then you'd have to make adjustments for throw.
Click to expand...
Joe Tucker's system can be corrected in the same way you would correct the ghost ball system: choose a target other than the center of the pocket so as to compensate for throw. However, I think most people will include the correction subconsciously without much problem. They would only encounter a problem if -- like me with the frozen ball shot -- they can apply the system exactly.

One of the main points Eddie Robin makes over and over and over in his W1P book is that systems can work only if you let your judgment do the final adjustment.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Joe Tucker's system can be corrected in the same way you would correct the ghost ball system: choose a target other than the center of the pocket so as to compensate for throw. However, I think most people will include the correction subconsciously without much problem. They would only encounter a problem if -- like me with the frozen ball shot -- they can apply the system exactly.

One of the main points Eddie Robin makes over and over and over in his W1P book is that systems can work only if you let your judgment do the final adjustment.
Click to expand...


I walk up to a shot. Shoot it. It goes in. Why? A lot of practice and a feel for the ball. Same with a bank. I get a feel on how to hit it. Most of the time it goes in. If I try to analyze it I will probably miss. Knowledge is experience and experience comes from mistakes. All systems are good for starters. After that it takes practice and a feel or educated guess. If there was a sure deadlock system no one would have to practice. Just memorize the system develop a good stroke and become a champ, or as some think buy a certain magical cue.
 
About that book...

About that book... In some ways I'm sickened that you must dish out 400 dollars or more
for it. And the same holds true for the "companion" book. I have never seen the books
firsthand, as I do not know anyone who owns them. It's really sad in some ways that the
knowledge in those books, whatever it may be, is only available to a select few, due to the
prohibitive cost.

This is one of the major reasons I never took up one pocket.

Edit: I forgot about Buddy Hall's book, and to me, this fits in the same category.

Edit2: I remember hearing about some unscrupulous folks that borrow books like that
from a library. Then they tell the library they lost them, pay the $20 or so, and put
them up on ebay, or keep them for themselves. It just shows you how some folks think.
 
Last edited:
dabarbr said:
Everyone knows the spot to hit on the object ball to make it into the pocket. The problem is hitting that spot. Practice, practice, practice. There is no other way.
Click to expand...


I agree

Even beginners can get behind the OB and point tot he spot needed to be hit to pocket the ball.

How to align to that spot is the tough spot.
I dont think that theres a truely reliable aiming method that can align a
person correctly on an eight foot shot without some major major practice time. And then was it the practice time or the aiming method. Methods do seem good for getting players to understand the physical side and making them practice.

However I have never ever heard of any Pro level player that has not mentioned that he used to play hours and hours on end while getting better. That leads me to believe that theres little substitute for practice.

The brain is constantly calculating errors in everything we do. Practicing pool with the brain open and alert will speed up the learning curve. Perhaps
making someone more alert (ie. using an aiming method) opens the brain a little.

I also think that its very helpful if when first starting a player is shown that the cueballs leading edge will not hit the OBs needed contact point.
IMO once someone understands this the shorter shots become much easier for them to "see the angle" or plain old "luck in". Either way the brain will file that away for later.

BTW--dabarbr .... this is "alabama" Still waiting for a chance to ride the 8ball !! has not came up yet LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top