aiming poll

[Patrick Johnson]

You can hit higher or lower on the cueball and still get the same amount of sidespin by adjusting horizontally at the same time. Your aim line should be nowhere near the same and you get the same spin and still make the shot. Speed may need to change also.

unknownpro

All of that's true, but we're pretty far from anything I was trying to talk about. I'm just questioning the existence of a squirt compensation method called "parallel", which I think is just a bad name for "estimated".

"Estimated" is one of two kinds of squirt compensation (the other is "pivoted" or "mechanical"), and I thought comparing the two kinds might show what "parallel" refers to. Silly me.

pj
chgo

 

[unknownpro]

All of that's true, but we're pretty far from anything I was trying to talk about. I'm just questioning the existence of a squirt compensation method called "parallel", which I think is just a bad name for "estimated".

"Estimated" is one of two kinds of squirt compensation (the other is "pivoted" or "mechanical"), and I thought comparing the two kinds might show what "parallel" refers to. Silly me.

pj
chgo

That's already been answered. "Parallel" aiming is short for "I don't know how to use english".

unknownpro

 

[softshot]

I think some of you are getting caught up in semantics.

The way I read the question I'd say I mix front and back hand.

when I'm down on the shot and need top right I raise my bridge to get the top then shift my back hand to get the right. if I need bottom right then my bridge stays the same and I slightly elevate my back hand and pivot the tip to the right with my back hand. then I take my practice stokes and shoot the shot.

I'm guessing parallel means you chose the sidespin you want to place on the ball and pick that offset line before bending down and bend down off line by the minor amount needed for the side spin though I doubt anyone does that.

I would have phrased the question as subtle English adjustments when down on the ball rather than aiming, but I got the jist of it just from the choices.

 

[pdcue]

The first two choices in the poll are Back Hand English and Front Hand English. Those are squirt compensation methods.



Well, here's what you said about them:



Same shot, two different methods of squirt compensation (pivot and "parallel"), CB and OB go different places. You tell me - can both be successful?



My best guess is that you've lost track of the conversation. This has never been about how I adjust for squirt. I've just been trying to figure out what others think "parallel" means - what they think is parallel to what. What do you think is meant by it?

pj
chgo

So many errors, so little time...

I haven't lost track of anything, most especially the critical
points that you keep ducking and always fail to include in
quoted sections.

To repeat.

1. Why won't you deal with the question of whether squirt
is or is not the only consideration?

2. Why did you once again mis-quote my explaination that
the same tip offset with two diferent cue orientations will give
two diferent results?

3. You know full well that the OPs description of parallel is not
reflective of reality, Why do you insist on arguing with what you
wish I said instead of what I actually did say? You and I both know
he refers to the practice of lining the cue up offset to the center
of the CB, along a line of aim, not pivoting the tip to an offset.
If you don't like the term parallel, call it something else.

4. My example was to explain that if you think pivoting gives the same
result as not pivoting, because there is only one way to piocket the OB,
you most certainly don't grasp the physical situation. It is for this
reason that I advised a diagram, or even better a model. The diagram
has worked well in the past for teaching players who couldn't visualize
the effects of sidespin. Believe me, they will help.

Dale<captain visulization, at your service>

 

[pdcue]

That's already been answered. "Parallel" aiming is short for "I don't know how to use english".

unknownpro

I don't think so.

If the name is the problem - call it something else:

TCO - Total Cue Offset
NCP - Non CUE Pivoting

the possibilities approach endless.

The important point is that the choices are most definitely
not limited to 1. pivot. 2 guess, no matter how much
Pat wants to think they are.

Dale<a side spinner who knows how to aim>

 

[Dead Money]

I use the H.A.H. method of aiming. Hit and hope!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So many errors, so little time...

I haven't lost track of anything, most especially the critical
points that you keep ducking and always fail to include in
quoted sections.

To repeat.

1. Why won't you deal with the question of whether squirt
is or is not the only consideration?

2. Why did you once again mis-quote my explaination that
the same tip offset with two diferent cue orientations will give
two diferent results?

3. You know full well that the OPs description of parallel is not
reflective of reality, Why do you insist on arguing with what you
wish I said instead of what I actually did say? You and I both know
he refers to the practice of lining the cue up offset to the center
of the CB, along a line of aim, not pivoting the tip to an offset.
If you don't like the term parallel, call it something else.

4. My example was to explain that if you think pivoting gives the same
result as not pivoting, because there is only one way to piocket the OB,
you most certainly don't grasp the physical situation. It is for this
reason that I advised a diagram, or even better a model. The diagram
has worked well in the past for teaching players who couldn't visualize
the effects of sidespin. Believe me, they will help.

Dale<captain visulization, at your service>

I'm not all that interested in how you think you've been misinterpreted or misrepresented. This thread isn't about you or me.

If you have a lucid description of the "parallel" method that explains how it differs from pivoting or estimating, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're talking to somebody else.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

unknownpro:
Parallel" aiming is short for "I don't know how to use english".

pdcue:
I don't think so.

If the name is the problem - call it something else:

TCO - Total Cue Offset
NCP - Non CUE Pivoting

the possibilities approach endless.

The important point is that the choices are most definitely
not limited to 1. pivot. 2 guess, no matter how much
Pat wants to think they are.

Dale<a side spinner who knows how to aim>

Actually, the important point for me is that nobody has yet described "parallel aiming" by any name, despite my many questions about it. Why is that? Do you know what parallel aiming is? If it isn't pivoting or estimating, do you know how it adjusts for squirt?

Do these questions sound at all familiar to you? Is there a reason you're not answering them?

pj
chgo

 

[pdcue]

Actually, the important point for me is that nobody has yet described "parallel aiming" by any name, despite my many questions about it. Why is that? Do you know what parallel aiming is? If it isn't pivoting or estimating, do you know how it adjusts for squirt?

Do these questions sound at all familiar to you? Is there a reason you're not answering them?

pj
chgo

1. So why won't you answer the question about squirt?

2. Might be because parallel aiming doesn't exist - as you well know.

All your arguments still rest on an incorect concept,
ie that some movement of the cue will automatically compensate
for the effects of sidespin.

If you don't pivot the cue, you address the ball with the cue where it must be in order to pocket the OB - this is determined BEFORE addressing
the ball. Some refer to this methoid as 'parallel' because the centerline
of the cue is aprox parallel to the line-of-sight from CP to CP on the
CB and OB. Of course, as you also know, it is not exactly parallel.
But the term Para, easily distinguishes it from pivoted.

It also requires neither pivoting nor estimating.

Will it be possible for you to go on with the burden of living
with the knowledge that some people use a term that
is not as precisely defined as you need it to be?

Think about the example of 'dead combination' and 'dead bank'.
Two placements of balls that have nearly interchangeable, and, at first
glance, descriptive names. Yet the true meanings are not at all related.

Dale<seeing paralles in history for decades>

 

[Solartje]

I'm guessing parallel means you chose the sidespin you want to place on the ball and pick that offset line before bending down and bend down off line by the minor amount needed for the side spin though I doubt anyone does that.

I would have phrased the question as subtle English adjustments when down on the ball rather than aiming, but I got the jist of it just from the choices.

If you don't pivot the cue, you address the ball with the cue where it must be in order to pocket the OB - this is determined BEFORE addressing
the ball. Some refer to this methoid as 'parallel' because the centerline
of the cue is aprox parallel to the line-of-sight from CP to CP on the
CB and OB. Of course, as you also know, it is not exactly parallel.
But the term Para, easily distinguishes it from pivoted..

thats actually what i ment and i have seen it done i'm not sure if that is what people mean by parralel "aiming", as i dont know what people mean with it, but i wanted the poll to be complete.

I also wanted to check on if many people use this parralel "thing", i might want to do some research and see how it works.. but i guess ill stay with BHE on some shots and feel for all the rest.

guess it started a nice semi-OT-post that might give some interesting insights. Keep it going

 

[Patrick Johnson]

1. So why won't you answer the question about squirt?

What question?

2. Might be because parallel aiming doesn't exist - as you well know.

Tell me again how a name that describes something that doesn't exist is useful.

All your arguments still rest on an incorect concept,
ie that some movement of the cue will automatically compensate
for the effects of sidespin.

I don't know what arguments you're talking about or what "some movement of the cue" or "automatically compensate" mean.

If you don't pivot the cue, you address the ball with the cue where it must be in order to pocket the OB - this is determined BEFORE addressing the ball. Some refer to this methoid as 'parallel' because the centerline of the cue is aprox parallel to the line-of-sight from CP to CP on the CB and OB. Of course, as you also know, it is not exactly parallel.
But the term Para, easily distinguishes it from pivoted.

My point has been that it doesn't easily distinguish itself from pivoted because a correctly pivoted cue ends up in exactly the same place, "almost parallel" to the same CP-to-CP line. The name "parallel aiming" does the opposite of distinguishing the two - it confuses them.

It also requires neither pivoting nor estimating.

If it doesn't require estimating, how do you "address the ball with the cue where it must be in order to pocket the OB"? Do you think that doing it "by feel" isn't estimating?

Will it be possible for you to go on with the burden of living
with the knowledge that some people use a term that
is not as precisely defined as you need it to be?

How do you like answering 20-question quizzes about the terminology rather than talking about the substance of the topic?

Think about the example of 'dead combination' and 'dead bank'.
Two placements of balls that have nearly interchangeable, and, at first
glance, descriptive names. Yet the true meanings are not at all related.

The only interchangeable word in those is "dead", meaning "already lined up correctly", which can be true for any kind of shot. "Combination" and "bank" aren't nearly interchangeable where I play pool - I don't know about you. So both of those phrases are descriptive, accurate and distinguishable - "parallel aiming" is none of those things.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

In fact, the difference between draw and follow and stun can be more than the width of the pocket on a 4-6 foot shot. If you make such shots routinely with all of those spins (and without side spin) then you are probably subconsciously compensating for the differences. To the best of my knowledge, until about five years ago, the large size of the effect and even its direction were unknown in the pool world.

Bob, that is fascinating. Can you point me to any articles that you or others have written on that effect?

THANKS!

Jim

 

[av84fun]

guys, I talked to wade crane kim davenport and cliff joyner in the last week and they all said quit looking for the miracle cure. there is no aiming system except by feel and touch if you are going to be a champion. I dont know if i quoted them word for word but you get the point

With great respect for each of the above players...

A) They don't speak for the entire championship pool community.

B) I personally know more than one WORLD CHAMPION who do use systems for base line aiming. (of course adjusting for throw/squirt/curve etc.

C) Again, with great respect for the 3 players you quoted, I am sure they have not interviewed all current world champions about their aiming techniques and if they did MOST of those people would LIE! (-:

D) Most importantly, many (but not all) of those pros who have devoted MASSIVELY more time to play and practice than the VAST majority of the rest of us and who THINK they have developed an entirely intuitive approach to aiming may, in fact, be using some sort of system subconsciously.

Regards,

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So why won't you answer the question about squirt?

If this is the question you mean...

Why won't you deal with the question of whether squirt
is or is not the only consideration?

...then the answer is: Because whatever you think should be considered for paralleling (sidespin, follow/draw, speed, distance, etc.), should also be considered for pivoting or you're not comparing apples with apples.

The aim adjustment you get by pivoting is not different from the aim adjustment you get by paralleling just because you could use hard follow with pivoting and soft stun with paralleling. They're only different if they produce different aim adjustments when adjusting for the same combination of sidespin, follow/draw, speed, distance, etc.

So when I say all aim adjustment methods produce exactly the same cue position, I mean in order to adjust correctly for exactly the same kind of spin, speed, distance, etc. Of course you need different cue positions for different kinds of spin, speed, distance, etc., but then you're not comparing different aim adjustment methods - you're comparing the different effects of different kinds of spin, speed, distance, etc.

I thought this was obvious.

pj
chgo

 

[unknownpro]

I point my stick where the shot feels right. On a few shots, maybe 1% or 0.1%, there are some systems that can be useful for me, such as the "inverse proportional cut for close balls," but with all of the compensation you have to do to get the object ball into the pocket, I think it is actually harmful to tie yourself to a system, because no system -- played strictly -- can tell you where to point your stick to put the ball into the pocket for all shots.

One example that does not include side spin: many people think that draw and follow have no direct effect on the cut angle. In fact, the difference between draw and follow and stun can be more than the width of the pocket on a 4-6 foot shot. If you make such shots routinely with all of those spins (and without side spin) then you are probably subconsciously compensating for the differences. To the best of my knowledge, until about five years ago, the large size of the effect and even its direction were unknown in the pool world.

Or you are consciously aiming at a different place, knowing the ghost ball must move slightly, because you know that the throw will be different. I would say most players knew these affects many years ago, otherwise they would have sucked. The only aiming method that matters is how do you get the cueball to your chosen ghost ball postition using english. If you don't have an exact aim for your tip down table you are indeed guessing and hoping. If you do have an exact aim you can begin to notice whether your aim for the stroke you delivered was right or not. The point of aim for your tip should always be the center or very near the edge of the ghost ball. The more exact your aim, the better you can line up the cue to go through the right amount of the cueball to attain your desired deflection.

Everybody aims, some people do it better than others. Feel is not aiming. Feel is feel. Aiming is aiming. I attempt to use my "system" on every shot, otherwise it is useless to me.

To me, playing by feel is trying to visualize the path of the cueball to make the shot and not concentrating on your stick direction. If you are aiming, you must be aiming the cue stick, and you must aim it from somewhere and at something, otherwise you are simply not aiming and playing by "feel". And I would guess that your 1% or 0.1% statistics apply to the number of people actually aiming their cue stick on every shot, maybe even less, since most people are looking at the contact point on the object ball.

unknownpro

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you don't have an exact aim for your tip down table you are indeed guessing and hoping.

I pay attention to where my tip is pointing downtable and try to point it where it's been successful in the past, but there's no "exact place" to aim it. What do you mean by that?

pj
chgo

 

[unknownpro]

I pay attention to where my tip is pointing downtable and try to point it where it's been successful in the past, but there's no "exact place" to aim it. What do you mean by that?

pj
chgo

I mean you are guessing and hoping instead of shooting. The object ball is in an exact spot. There is an exact spot for the ghost ball. Of course there's an exact place to aim for a certain speed and english range. Where is that spot? On 99% of the shots I play, it's very very near the edge of the ghostball or at the exact center of the ghostball.

unknownpro

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I mean you are guessing and hoping instead of shooting. The object ball is in an exact spot. There is an exact spot for the ghost ball. Of course there's an exact place to aim for a certain speed and english range. Where is that spot? On 99% of the shots I play, it's very very near the edge of the ghostball or at the exact center of the ghostball.

unknownpro

You can't see the ghostball, so you must be "guessing and hoping" you're imagining it in the right place. On top of that you're "guessing and hoping" that you're accurately imagining the spot that's "very very near the edge" of your imagined ghostball. You're guessing and hoping on top of guessing and hoping. I assume you do it well enough, but there's nothing "exact" about any of it.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

I have to agree with unknown pro who wrote "Everybody aims, some people do it better than others. Feel is not aiming. Feel is feel. Aiming is aiming. I attempt to use my "system" on every shot, otherwise it is useless to me."

I understand where Bob is coming from...that some players are extremely intuitive and couldn't explain their "aiming technique" if they had to.

Irving "Deacon" Crane, when asked to give a lesson said something like "I can't teach you anything because I don't know what I'm doing."

But just because a player can't explain their aiming system doesn't mean they don't have one. In fact, as unknowpro suggests, the HAVE to have one or they would make shots only by accident.

Granted, the system could have become SO ingrained as to be nearly or fully subconscious but again...just because the brain is causing body motion from the subconscious level doesn't mean that the brain is not executing a system.

Finally, while Bob is, of course, correct that NO system can work for ALL shots of any given angle due to the operation of throw, curve, hopping, squirt etc. I my view a system that works BECAUSE IT IS GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT Iis an important and fundamental BASELINE from which one would adjust for extrinsic factors...and that adjustment is where I agree that "feel" (or rote memory) comes into play.

Except for center ball hits (except for the stun influence that Bob just mentioned and that I would love to learn about) No aiming system can possibly work as Bob suggests.

On the other hand, attempting to adjust for extrinsic variables without ANY baseline aiming system would be just as problematic.

So, were I come down is that we mortals who can't practice 6-8 hours a day to pound our mind/body responses into our very souls, then a baseline aimings system is a proper and quite necessary place to start.

THEN, if you want to progress beyond the banger stage, you MUST learn to adjust for collision-related factors and there is NO system that can pin that sort of adjustment down.

It is the ability to execute those adjustments with great consistency that makes champions...that and the ability to remain reasonably sober for the majority of the match!!

(-:

 

[unknownpro]

You can't see the ghostball, so you must be "guessing and hoping" you're imagining it in the right place. On top of that you're "guessing and hoping" that you're accurately imagining the spot that's "very very near the edge" of your imagined ghostball. You're guessing and hoping on top of guessing and hoping. I assume you do it well enough, but there's nothing "exact" about any of it.

pj
chgo

The ghostball is just as real as the object ball. It touches the object ball, and is exactly the same size. Can't you see it? If not, then how do you ever get the cueball throught that spot? If so, then the only realistic target for your tip is in relation to it. I said very very near the edge because everyone would say it can't be exactly the edge. But in reality I basically always shoot to graze the outside edge when using english except on shots you can't keep from curving. And I avoid those shots if at all possible.

Didn't you say yourself that there is only one line for your cue to make the same shot with the same speed and english? Sounds exact to me.

And yes, I do it very well once I train myself to quit looking at that damned object ball.

unknownpro