Aiming System Or Not?

[BC21]

lol... ok how about this.

The closest thing I use to a 'system' (aka: a predetermined set of instructions that anyone can follow) is the "ghost ball". However that is only used to develop an aim line for me to begin my PSR. After which I then apply my own brand of adjustments, checks, and then corrections to shoot the CB. ...so "process"...?..., yes. A "system" relative to what the OP is asking...?..., not so much.

If you don't think it ridiculous to call "HAMB" a system, then we can say I'm a full blooded system user.

It isn't rediculous. HAMB is a system.

Whether the initial aiming method is ghostball or contact points or fractions or whatever, the end result (consistency) is reliant on using that aiming method in some sort of systematic manner. Once you begin to successfully pocket more balls than you miss, you are finally training the brain (via rote) to recognize those shots.

Trial and error is a systematic process. It works, but it's slow because it requires misses in order to learn how not to miss.

In the end, no matter what method you use, training the mind to consistently recognize and pocket balls is a matter of rote/repetition. Not repeating misses, but repeating successful shots over and over again. So if you have a method (or "system") that allows you the benefit of not relying on trial and error so much, you can begin utilizing the rote/HAMB method more efficiently from the beginning.

 

[JB Cases]

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!

I wasn't asking for a debate. I gave you my opinion on this and it will remain the same until you change from a mocking stance to an investigative one where you actually try to honor your solid engineering background and treat them like you treat other subjects. As I said in my opinion you are abusing your position on this topic and contributing to the divide. It is highly unfortunate as you are an amazing contributor to pool knowledge in all other areas.

As for being "worth the effort".....debating "beliefs and philosophies" in any context generally leads to bad feelings no matter the subject. The effort though that is worthwhile is for the premier billiards knowledge investigator, you, to get together with the premier instructor of the most controversial of the aiming systems and to investigate TOGETHER using your experience in doing slow motion video analysis and experiment construction to eliminate variables.

IF I had the time and money to do the type of studies and experiments to suss out the details then I would do it. To me bridging the gap is worth the effort and certainly better than creating more division.

By the way your aiming systems resource page is full of OPINION and not much in the way of "well-researched" content. And it is out of date with the "opinions" you have deliberately chosen to use. Cherry-picking pro comments that align with your "beliefs" while not offering comments from other pros who don't align with your beliefs is not cool or academically sound and perhaps should not be a part of a .edu page imo.

 

[JB Cases]

Bam! This is gold!

What is the shot line and how do you find it?

 

[dr_dave]

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!

I wasn't asking for a debate. I gave you my opinion on this and it will remain the same until you change from a mocking stance to an investigative one where you actually try to honor your solid engineering background and treat them like you treat other subjects. As I said in my opinion you are abusing your position on this topic and contributing to the divide. It is highly unfortunate as you are an amazing contributor to pool knowledge in all other areas.

As for being "worth the effort".....debating "beliefs and philosophies" in any context generally leads to bad feelings no matter the subject. The effort though that is worthwhile is for the premier billiards knowledge investigator, you, to get together with the premier instructor of the most controversial of the aiming systems and to investigate TOGETHER using your experience in doing slow motion video analysis and experiment construction to eliminate variables.

IF I had the time and money to do the type of studies and experiments to suss out the details then I would do it. To me bridging the gap is worth the effort and certainly better than creating more division.

In my experience, debating pool "aiming systems" is like debating abortion or religion or politics. It is almost impossible to change people's minds on topics like these. So to me, any more discussion or "debate" seems futile. It has been beat to death countless times in the past by me and many others. I see no reason to continue since no new insight ever seems to emerge. Those interested to learn more know where to go.

 

[The_JV]

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.

Thank you for this Dave... This was the first time I read that page.

I got a good laugh and I think I may be using your system without even knowing it. Is there some level of royality I should be sending you...?

 

[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.

Thank you for this Dave... This was the first time I read that page.

I got a good laugh and I think I may be using your system without even knowing it. Is there some level of royality I should be sending you...?

It is not really a "system." It is instead a summary of all the important things that pretty much all top players do when they aim.

I guess that means you must be a "top player."

 

[boogieman]

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?

I can't comment on what contact geometry means, but you understand the geometry. You're using CTE, a visual system to perform the rest as in alignment and aim. You could use parts of CTE with other aiming systems, though it would no longer be CTE. CTE is getting you in stance based off what you see at the table, then it applies (well somewhat simultaneously) the contact portion. If I understand what I've read, stance is built into how it works as you're using the visual information while standing to come down on the correct line. You can use the same idea with ghost ball, or whatever, though it no longer pure CTE but a hybrid including the standing and getting into stance portion of CTE. In my (maybe misconstrued) thoughts on CTE, instead of getting an aim on the aim point then using visual cues to get into stance, you're using set aim lines (for lack of a better word) and estimating angles. I'm terrible at estimating angles, other than tangent and 30 degree. It's a skill that can be learned and mastered but I don't want to be guessing between a 15 inside and a 45 outside while competing, and I've not practiced it enough to rely on during competition. Pool is an exacting science, but there is more than one way to get there. 4+6=10, but so does 2+8 or 5+5. The most important thing is getting to 10. Aiming systems help get to the 10 for many people, and others do it by rote, or rote plus a little bit of system. I know you already know this stuff, but I just enjoy discussion.

 

[JB Cases]

In my experience, debating pool "aiming systems" is like debating abortion or religion or politics. It is almost impossible to change people's minds on topics like these. So to me, any more discussion or "debate" seems futile.

Textual debate on this subject is indeed futile.

It has been beat to death countless times in the past by me and many others.

Debated endlessly yes. To death no. Tested scientifically, no. Tested scientifically in collaboration with the highest skilled practitioners? No. And this, to me, will always be the reason for the extreme disconnect and poisonous-thinking that pervades this topic. I honestly don't understand it as I believe we all want pool to flourish and I believe we all want players to be able to improve efficiently and enjoy the journey.

I see no reason to continue since no new insight ever seems to emerge. Those interested to learn more know where to go.

I wish that were true but the amount of misinformation and disinformation, such as some of what is on your site on this topic, is harmful in my opinion. Obviously I can't possibly force you to do anything but you are an influential voice in pool in my opinion and it truly saddens me that you have taken a position where you mock and allow "certain" voices to be heard on the websites that you control but not others. By doing so you are deliberately shaping people's opinions and allowing them to use your content to continue the mockery.

To me it would be so much better to have a "conference" where the major folks on both sides got together and hashed it out with videos and discussion ON THE TABLE. Where each part of the process was dissected in a controlled environment. But it seems like those on the "mocking" side are never interested in doing that.

In my now 30 year career in this industry I have never seen a more divisive topic and there should be be literally no reason for people to be divided. I find it to be twisted, sick and demented that people get into toxic fights over how to aim in pool. If I were an engineer with access to the equipment and funding to take this on I would because I consider aiming to be the first thing anyone does and it sets the tone for the execution of the shot. In other words a person can make a shot that is aimed wrong through the use of gearing/body english but they are often compensating unknowingly and a person can aim perfectly and miss the shot through a faulty stroke that gears the object ball away from the pocket so it would be really great to KNOW all the real details about aiming/alignment with zero room left for opinion.

You have been content to identify and demystify so many of the physical interactions between balls with scientific precision and with dry and capable explanation that is really easy to understand while you have taken an unscientific position on aiming systems riddled with negative opinion and mocking. It is incongruent to the vast majority of freaking great information on your sites. Oh well, I guess there must be some psychological payoff for taking this path and my comments will probably be filed in the trash.

 

[JB Cases]

I can't comment on what contact geometry means, but you understand the geometry. You're using CTE, a visual system to perform the rest as in alignment and aim. You could use parts of CTE with other aiming systems, though it would no longer be CTE. CTE is getting you in stance based off what you see at the table, then it applies (well somewhat simultaneously) the contact portion. If I understand what I've read, stance is built into how it works as you're using the visual information while standing to come down on the correct line. You can use the same idea with ghost ball, or whatever, though it no longer pure CTE but a hybrid including the standing and getting into stance portion of CTE. In my (maybe misconstrued) thoughts on CTE, instead of getting an aim on the aim point then using visual cues to get into stance, you're using set aim lines (for lack of a better word) and estimating angles. I'm terrible at estimating angles, other than tangent and 30 degree. It's a skill that can be learned and mastered but I don't want to be guessing between a 15 inside and a 45 outside while competing, and I've not practiced it enough to rely on during competition. Pool is an exacting science, but there is more than one way to get there. 4+6=10, but so does 2+8 or 5+5. The most important thing is getting to 10. Aiming systems help get to the 10 for many people, and others do it by rote, or rote plus a little bit of system. I know you already know this stuff, but I just enjoy discussion.

I remember exactly when I told myself that I would use CTE in competition. It was a day when I was playing for a lot of money and I had lost to a guy a few days before and I said to myself I have tested this a bunch of ways and it works so just commit already. And I did when I played him the second time and just destroyed him. The main reason I won was because I was making the clutch shots. The very next match that I used CTE in exclusively was in a one pocket match where I was giving a better 9 ball player stupid weight 12-8. I broke even that night and I wrote a post on one pocket.org about how CTE helped me with certain shots that I had always had trouble with when playing one pocket. I was eviscerated on that forum for DARING to suggest that an aiming system could help when playing one pocket. Meanwhile, in the past week or so I came across an old video where no less than Melvin "Strawberry" Brooks was doing an instructional and showing a fractional aiming system for banks. Freddie the Beard also messaged me privately during that ream John thread to tell me that many top players back in the day used good aiming systems but they wouldn't tell anyone and you had to pry it out of them.

People say use what works for you and when you tell them what works for you they tell you it can't possibly work......how does that work?

 

[boogieman]

In other words a person can make a shot that is aimed wrong through the use of gearing/body english but they are often compensating unknowingly and a person can aim perfectly and miss the shot through a faulty stroke that gears the object ball away from the pocket so it would be really great to KNOW all the real details about aiming/alignment with zero room left for opinion.

Yes. It's the same with anything. People miss shots. I miss shots, you miss shots, even SVB misses shots. The thing is, as long as we observe and collect data on why we missed, we can correct it. Some correct it by steering, some by following the aiming system better, some by "feeling" what went wrong and fixing it. Then some never learn and just blame it on a fluke or "dirty balls," etc, with no real attempt to quantify and analyze the data. It was bad rolls or "I'm just off today." Heck, some even discount the miss by buying a round of shots instead of caring about improvement. Pool is psychology, road players know this all too well. When we play and observe, we learn how spheres react when they collide. When we miss, we may need to experiment at the practice table a bit to see why we missed. Once we learn the lesson through practice, we know the shot and hopefully it won't end our run again.

I think observation, quantifying and analyzing why we missed is how we all get better. It takes work that players above the casual level seem to enjoy. Pool gives you what you want. It can just be a casual thing to do while shooting the breeze, it can be a subject of mastery, therapy, or it can be a career. It depends on what intention and effort people have the patience to put into it. There's no right or wrong answer, but at higher levels the game is being played as it should.

 

[7stud]

A 2.25" margin of error in a 4.5" pocket translates to a 1/16" contact patch on a spotted OB. More than 50 of these contact patches fit on half of the OB's circumference, so it takes that number of discrete cut angles to make the spot shot from all possible CB positions (cut angles). No system could possibly have anywhere near that many clearly defined cut angles.

And it only gets worse as the shots get longer. With the OB at center table it takes close to 100 cut angles per half ball. Kinda makes you wonder how the hell we pull it off, doesn't it?

pj
chgo

I think you forgot to take into account how hitting the CB with TOI makes the pocket bigger, so in reality there are many fewer contact patches to choose from, probably somewhere on the order of 4.

 

[JC]

Sorry, but I no longer debate "aiming system" beliefs and philosophies in threads like these.

When mom finally reached over the front seat and delivers the backhand.............

 

[JB Cases]

When mom finally reached over the front seat and delivers the backhand.............

And yet he did "debate" it by linking to a page full of opinions. No one backhanded me. Not you not Dave, no one.

 

[lfigueroa]

And yet he did "debate" it by linking to a page full of opinions. No one backhanded me. Not you not Dave, no one.

Obviously you've never played tennis, lol.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

In my experience, debating pool "aiming systems" is like debating abortion or religion or politics. It is almost impossible to change people's minds on topics like these. So to me, any more discussion or "debate" seems futile. It has been beat to death countless times in the past by me and many others. I see no reason to continue since no new insight ever seems to emerge. Those interested to learn more know where to go.

You cannot debate stupid.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JC]

And yet he did "debate" it by linking to a page full of opinions. No one backhanded me. Not you not Dave, no one.

Whatever you say, now go clean up your face.

 

[BC21]

That was Hal Houle's claim - but it actually takes about 50 different cut angles just to make a spot shot into a 4.5" corner pocket (less from closer, more from farther away). You only get down to 8 cut angles with the OB about 6" away from the pocket.

This is why fractional aiming (and its derivatives) isn't an exact science, but a "reference" system.

pj
chgo

But that's the total possible cuts to both pockets. So it's 25 cut angles for the left pocket, and the same 25 for the right.

Put the ob on the center diamond and now it's much more than 25 different lines to a corner pocket. But even an inexperienced player can get within 15° of the proper aim line by just looking at the shot. That narrows the choices down to about 6 aim lines.

 

[straightline]

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?

Yes you've said all this. And for the tenth or so time, it's not a (or THE) math discipline. Contact Geometry are two terms referring to the alignment of ball contacts. More succinctly, it's not CTE which puts JB in inane mode. Also it's not ghost ball although you can easily establish an intersection that defines the base of the ghost ball. DEFINES. WTF is ghost ball for that matter? Does it only appear at certain times or for certain people?

Equal opposites, reciprocal sections, mid point roll, and more are all components of contact alignment. The only point is they can be used in part or together to form an exact representation of a shot. There is nothing more precise to hang your assumptions, presumptions, shootsumshuns on.

Incidentally, why is center to center any more precise than any other visualized segment? Do you lay out your work without a straight edge?

 

[JB Cases]

Obviously you've never played tennis, lol.

Lou Figueroa

Has nothing to do with the conversation. Fact is that none of the "mockers" ever want to get in the ring with anyone their speed. They look for the lambs who are learning and knock them. I am positive that positive things would come from a good couple days where the good contributors to pool would get together and hash out the aiming system questions and agree on terminology and parameters that both sides are good with. You and me need not be invited as we have nothing to offer that the best people on each side can't figure out and roll-out that information to the rest of us. Then there wouldn't be any need to argue about it once both sides have come to terms.

Otherwise every average player like you and like me will be picking a side and arguing and mocking and being assholes when there is really no reason for people who all love this sport to be arguing so caustically. And when super-nobodies like us argue about things that we have not mastered then we tend to cherry-pick our "evidence" from the words of those far above us. For people like you on the "all feel" side and people like me on the "objective system" side all we really can do is give our opinions and parrot what our "betters" on the subject have to say and tell our personal experience stories.

And we all know how that goes at this point.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes you've said all this. And for the tenth or so time, it's not a (or THE) math discipline. Contact Geometry are two terms referring to the alignment of ball contacts. More succinctly, it's not CTE which puts JB in inane mode. Also it's not ghost ball although you can easily establish an intersection that defines the base of the ghost ball. DEFINES. WTF is ghost ball for that matter? Does it only appear at certain times or for certain people?

Equal opposites, reciprocal sections, mid point roll, and more are all components of contact alignment. The only point is they can be used in part or together to form an exact representation of a shot. There is nothing more precise to hang your assumptions, presumptions, shootsumshuns on.

Incidentally, why is center to center any more precise than any other visualized segment? Do you lay out your work without a straight edge?

Yes Ghost Ball "appears" differently to different people. That's part of the issue with GB I think and why there are dozens of GB trainers. The thing is that when I say to someone that I use 90/90 I can explain what it is and the steps to use it. Making up a term like "contact geometry" is not helpful unless you can define it and explain how one would use it. A nebulous description such as you have provided is meaningful to you but not really something anyone else can follow.

Center to center is easier to line up visually because there are three objective lines to use. two edges and where the ball rests on the table. Any alignment where you have clear lines like that is fully objective. A half ball alignment is similarly objective in that there are two clear lines to use. Edge to edge is next with one clear line connecting the balls. Everything else requires more training to perceive the lines such as the quarters and in between the edges and centers. Contact points are actually hard to hold onto as you move away from a direct line to the pocket through the contact point. The reason is because there is actually nothing on the equator that keeps the contact point clear to the shooter. But even if it were there such as having a laser dot on that spot it is still difficult to properly align to the cueball in the right way so that the cueball contact point and the object ball contact point meet in the right place. This is due to the offset between the contact point opposite the pocket on the object ball and the contact point that is facing away on the shooter on the wrong side of the ball. Equal Opposite/Aiming by the Numbers (Joe Tucker) and the Striking Line system (Gordy Vanderveer) address this decently for a certain shot range (they would say for all shots that go directly to a pocket as they are both masters at using these methods.) But I find that those methods which ARE geometrically correct on paper to be more difficult to use than CTE or 90/90 for example.

So honestly, if you can describe how to USE something called contact geometry it would be really helpful to those who prefer to use aiming methods with the components you say are part of "contact geometry".