Aiming System Or Not?

[JB Cases]

For older, experienced players like myself, aiming is not the issue. The issue is the stroke and the inability to consistently deliver the cue ball where one is aiming. No aiming system is going to fix that!

I don't agree. I have taught older experienced players aiming systems and watched as they flourished because their mind was not concerned with being aimed wrong and thus their stroking became more fluid.

I would however agree that in general an aiming system will not fix a faulty stroke. Just as the most powerful engine in the world is nearly useless of the car steering is bad.

I can say that in my personal case aiming systems have exposed how bad my stroke is. Now that I know I am on the correct shot line I have found that it is actually easy to throw the cue ball off of the shot line with a mishit.

Yin/Yang I guess.

 

[boogieman]

While I disagree about "by intuition" when using an aiming system I do agree that conscious usage and training informs and "trains" the subconscious which manifests itself as intuition when the subconscious directs the choices we make. Intuition also serves to inform the conscious mind to lurking dangers or opportunities.

Anecdotally I will say that the use of aiming systems consciously has in fact at times led to the development of a generally higher subconscious awareness of possibilities due to the baseline aim being established and the subsequent ability to fairly accurately "see"what happens if I choose to deviate from that baseline shot line.

For example I can more accurately choose to miss a shot in order to play safe. Not in a hustling sense but in a control sense.

I want to preface, I'm not talking or negating of any particular aiming system. If it works for the player, that's all that matters. Sans aiming system, other than looking at target to OB and keeping that line in my "mind's eye," I do this too. Every shot is a 2 way if it's a serious game. Pocketing is most important, but I'm not leaving Joe Blo a shot should I miss. Whatever you use, this level of focus, thinking shots ahead and 2 way shots is really important.

And when it comes to making the ball that baseline aim allows my intuitive subconscious to look at the various combinations of aim, spin and speed to achieve the needed shape after pocketing. So much good flows from having an aiming system where the conscious process resolves to a correct center pocket baseline shot line that I find the positive benefits of making deliberate choices to be way more than just shot making.

Agree, this is true of any system that works for the particular player, even "no system." Personally my "system" gives me a dead correct "area" for the shot line, then as with any system you adjust for how you hit the cueball and stuff like CIT. It's much easier to do than to imagine. It's pretty much automatic and I can best describe it as "feel." I have taken a Skype lesson with Gene @perfect aim billiards. It works well with any system, though he teaches it as a part of his own complete system. It's great though I took some parts and adapted them to how I already played and aimed. Super intuitive and it just works. Once you have the knowledge, it becomes pretty much automatic. I might think about it once in a while if a shot just doesn't look right no matter what, but I don't generally think about it while playing.

I mean we don't know because we can't get beyond the opinion stage and that stage contains some highly charged poison that infects the minds of people into believing that aiming systems are a crutch for the deficient and that players who use them are somehow "less-than" those who claim that they don't use any sort of aiming system.

Agree fully. It's not a crutch, different strokes for different folks. It doesn't matter to me what anyone uses as long as it works for them. Heck, even if it doesn't work for them it might make me want to play them for $5 for a race to 5! There isn't really any place for the bickering, on the surface it's entertaining but gets old quick. I think a lot of the bickering folks may do better watching a few episodes of Jersey Shore for a quick drama fix.

I would however agree that in general an aiming system will not fix a faulty stroke. Just as the most powerful engine in the world is nearly useless of the car steering is bad.

The thing is, without a correct aim and by not lining up on the correct shot line, how do you know your stroke is bad? You might appear to have a bad stroke or chicken wing, but you're actually stroking it "correctly" to overcome the bad stance/aim. Get your stance correct for the shot line and the chicken wings will often vanish.

Learning pool is like any science experiment, you have to have a known base and eliminate variables to start with in order to make accurate observations. If I were to line up 5 degrees to the left on each shot, I can still make them, but my form is off terribly, I feel unbalanced and the old chicken wing squawks into existence. This is the point I know I'm not on the shot line, it feels bad. If I'm being lazy I may just shoot anyway. The shot goes but it feels like crap and lacks any kind of consistency. We can make the shot in spite of ourselves, but that's no way to play. A good baseline no matter what system you use is a must. You have to have some kind of consistency in order to observe and improve.

I forget the exact quote but somewhere I read that the worst thing that can happen in pool is when we make the shot even though it shouldn't have went. It's true, because if you're not paying attention this kind of thing just breeds laziness and bad habits, often under the radar. I want to make an opponent feel the sting for giving me BIH and I appreciate the reverse. Sometimes negative happenings teach us a lesson very well. When a shot goes that shouldn't, we don't feel the sting.

 

[Boxcar]

Don't need no steenkin' aimin' seeestum. You just need to be a little bit smarter than two balls.

 

[straightline]

Don't need no steenkin' aimin' seeestum. You just need to be a little bit smarter than two balls.

There should be a distinction between aiming system and shooting system. I use basic geometry and elements of mechanical drawing to determine the pertinent ball alignments including the stick/shot line. I call this contact geometry to save words and there's no _I_ in contact geometry. This part is a no brainer and yields an accurate representation of the shot in question. Everything up to and including the stick line is the aiming system. Everything required of me to complete the shot is the shooting system.

 

[JB Cases]

There should be a distinction between aiming system and shooting system. I use basic geometry and elements of mechanical drawing to determine the pertinent ball alignments including the stick/shot line. I call this contact geometry to save words and there's no _I_ in contact geometry. This part is a no brainer and yields an accurate representation of the shot in question. Everything up to and including the stick line is the aiming system. Everything required of me to complete the shot is the shooting system.

while I am still not clear what embodies "contact geometry" in the context of pool playing I can certainly agree that a pool shot is actually two parts, Aiming and Execution.

 

[JC]

Sharivari=HAMB

Next question............................

 

[JB Cases]

Sharivari=HAMB

Next question............................

Then why is he pushing a projection system to aid with aiming and shot making? Sharivari is without a doubt one of the best contributors to pool knowledge but he is definitely NOT relying on HAMB to learn pool playing.

 

[straightline]

while I am still not clear what embodies "contact geometry" in the context of pool playing I can certainly agree that a pool shot is actually two parts, Aiming and Execution.

The geometry is anything that will depict the shot. Contact geometry is the geometry of lining up the two points. You've heard of suspension geometry - WTF is that supposed to mean? Well same thang.

 

[straightline]

...I can certainly agree that a pool shot is actually two parts, Aiming and Execution.

Given that, contact geometry will depict the the shot as it is to be shot. Why bother with anything else before shooting?

 

[The_JV]

Tommy Kennedy once said that he always starts at center to center and then moves in the direction of the cut until it feels right and he stops. That is to me a good example of an objective reference leading to an intuitive choice.

That's ghost ball with a guess (intutition) on aim.

Typical ghost ball uses the same premise for determining GB contact point while standing behind the shot. Grabbing a mental image of the OB and shifting to backward from the pocket along the shot line. Holding that mental image is the trick, but you always have that OB reference for GB dimension. People proficient with ghost ball tend to stand far enough away from the OB so it's size does not change as they move to the CB. They also don't break focus on that contact point, (aka: GB location).

Now once down on the CB intutition takes over, but that's the case for anything but a rolling CB without concern of CIT.

If I had to describe my method, I'd say it's a mix of ghost ball, Kennedy's method, and HAMB. I'm probably 80% HAMB, but when struggling the "Kennedy Ghost" (I like that) works for me.

 

[straightline]

With long straight ins, center to center shows pretty much where the shot is pointed. From there it's pretty reliable to micro fudge in the direction of the contact alignment.

 

[dr_dave]

Most good shooters aim using DAM ... plus HAMB. And this is basically what Sharivari suggests in his video.

FYI, if you have seen the DAM resource page in a while, check it out. I have improved and expanded it quite a bit over the years.

 

[JB Cases]

Most good shooters aim using DAM ... plus HAMB. And this is basically what Sharivari suggests in his video.

FYI, if you have seen the DAM resource page in a while, check it out. I have improved and expanded it quite a bit over the years.

When you use the word "most" do you have data to back that up or what is that based on?

 

[dr_dave]

Most good shooters aim using DAM ... plus HAMB. And this is basically what Sharivari suggests in his video.

FYI, if you have seen the DAM resource page in a while, check it out. I have improved and expanded it quite a bit over the years.

When you use the word "most" do you have data to back that up or what is that based on?

"Data" isn't required. It is obvious through careful observation of countless players (pool and snooker) and after discussions with many top players, students, and instructors.

BTW, "pretty much all" is probably more accurate than "most."

 

[JB Cases]

The geometry is anything that will depict the shot. Contact geometry is the geometry of lining up the two points. You've heard of suspension geometry - WTF is that supposed to mean? Well same thang.

I understand what geometry is. And I looked up contact geometry and nothing there seemed to be relatable to pool playing. I understand lining up two points along a long. So are you lining up contact points as is done in equal/opposite? Because only on a dead straight in with no margin of error is the center of the cueball and the center of the object ball aligned on the same line. Otherwise it is a cut shot where the centers don't line up. With ghost ball drawings the center of the ghost ball is on the same line as the cue ball center but the contact point is offset so I don't really know what "contact geometry" means in terms of how a person is supposed to use it. Of course we can depict any shot fairly easily using 2d and 3d ghost ball diagrams but how does this help the player at the table. I fully understand the various ways that people describe how they use ghost ball, from imagining a fully formed ball to align center to center/edges to edges....to...putting the tip down approximately 1.125" from the edge of the object ball.

Is there anyone else here who understands what "contact geometry" means in terms of aiming in pool?

 

[JoeyInCali]

Most good shooters aim using DAM ... plus HAMB. And this is basically what Sharivari suggests in his video.

FYI, if you have seen the DAM resource page in a while, check it out. I have improved and expanded it quite a bit over the years.

I agree .
It's naive to even think most good players just know where to place the cue ball to pocket balls AND play position .
Naive or just being in denial .

 

[JB Cases]

"Data" isn't required. It is obvious through careful observation of countless players (pool and snooker) and after discussions with many top players, students, and instructors.

BTW, "pretty much all" is probably more accurate than "most."

Ok, how do you observe this? What signs are there when observing a player that tells you how they are aiming/aligning? I also have had discussions with many top players, students and instructors and my findings don't agree with yours.

"Pretty much all" is likely to be inaccurate except that the way you wrote this resolves to "if you do everything right you will make everything you aim at".

"The basics of the DAM system are: with a consistent and purposeful pre-shot routine, visualize the required “angle of the shot” and required “line of aim” while standing, then align your vision center with the line of aim as you move your bridge hand and cue forward into your stance while keeping your focus on the OB (or ghost-ball resting point, or contact point, or ball overlap, or whatever else defines your target), then follow all of the recommended stroke “best practices.” Be sure to maintain “quiet eyes” both at the “set” aiming position, checking both the CB tip contact point and your aiming line, and when focusing on the OB (or whatever target you have identified) during the final forward stroke. If you are a good shooter and maintain focus and don’t do anything wrong during the entire DAM process, you will make every shot."

You know that I think you are not right in the way you mock aiming systems and that otherwise I think you are one of the best contributors in this sport. But you are fueling the divide on purpose and I don't think that this is a good thing to be doing.

I fully believe you are in a position to bridge that divide and instead you are using your reach to make it more divisive. I am guessing that you don't think that this is what you are doing but in fact you are.

I have been and still am willing to fund a meeting between you and Stan Shuffett. But from what I gather you would rather not have that meeting and instead continue to be divisive on this subject. It is unfortunate as I respect you and your work very highly in every other aspect.

 

[JB Cases]

I agree .
It's naive to even think most good players just know where to place the cue ball to pocket balls AND play position .
Naive or just being in denial .

LOL, what's a good player? Fargo 800, 700, 600, 500, 400? What defines "good" and who gets to define it? I mean I hope we can all agree that an 800 speed player is great and a 600 speed is a little above average. Am I a good player because I know more than you?

If this were all so easy then this thread wouldn't exist. If all anyone needed was ghost ball and focus then this thread wouldn't exist. Sharivari would NEVER get a question about aiming systems because only one system, the ghost ball method, would exist. So neither Sharivari nor Niels nor you would ever need to mock anyone over aiming systems. No snide little comments, no religious references, no "magic pill" references, no "secret aiming system" references. None of that would be present IF aiming were as simple as you claim it is.

Instead of undertaking a deep exploration of the aiming part of pool folks like you want to gloss over it and essentially say to the public that if they just don't see it without anything more than gb as their guide then maybe they just aren't cut out for pool and should try a different hobby. That's what I get out of your comments and feel free to correct me if I said something you don't mean. I am all ears on why you hate on aiming systems so much.

 

[dr_dave]

Ok, how do you observe this? What signs are there when observing a player that tells you how they are aiming/aligning? I also have had discussions with many top players, students and instructors and my findings don't agree with yours.

"Pretty much all" is likely to be inaccurate except that the way you wrote this resolves to "if you do everything right you will make everything you aim at".

"The basics of the DAM system are: with a consistent and purposeful pre-shot routine, visualize the required “angle of the shot” and required “line of aim” while standing, then align your vision center with the line of aim as you move your bridge hand and cue forward into your stance while keeping your focus on the OB (or ghost-ball resting point, or contact point, or ball overlap, or whatever else defines your target), then follow all of the recommended stroke “best practices.” Be sure to maintain “quiet eyes” both at the “set” aiming position, checking both the CB tip contact point and your aiming line, and when focusing on the OB (or whatever target you have identified) during the final forward stroke. If you are a good shooter and maintain focus and don’t do anything wrong during the entire DAM process, you will make every shot."

You know that I think you are not right in the way you mock aiming systems and that otherwise I think you are one of the best contributors in this sport. But you are fueling the divide on purpose and I don't think that this is a good thing to be doing.

I fully believe you are in a position to bridge that divide and instead you are using your reach to make it more divisive. I am guessing that you don't think that this is what you are doing but in fact you are.

I have been and still am willing to fund a meeting between you and Stan Shuffett. But from what I gather you would rather not have that meeting and instead continue to be divisive on this subject. It is unfortunate as I respect you and your work very highly in every other aspect.

Sorry, but I no longer debate "aiming system" beliefs and philosophies in threads like these. I have learned from the past that it isn't worth the effort and it often leads to bad feelings. I have already said all I want to say, and the DAM resource page has a good explanation and demonstration of all my views on this topic. And if people want to learn a lot more about "aiming systems" and related topics, including the benefits they offer, lots of well-researched and well-documented resources are available here:

aiming systems resource page​

Enjoy!

 

[JoeyInCali]

Sorry, but I no longer debate "aiming system" beliefs and philosophies in threads like these. I have learned from the past that it isn't worth the effort and it often leads to bad feelings. I have already said all I want to say, and the DAM resource page has a good explanation and demonstration of all my views on this topic. And if people want to learn a lot more about "aiming systems" and related topics, including the benefits they offer, lots of well-researched and well-documented resources are available here:

aiming systems resource page​

Enjoy!

Bam! This is gold!