Aiming System Or Not?

[BC21]

Condensed version: For all but short shots there are more needed cut angles than can be practically defined by aiming systems. More or less feel is needed depending on the shot distance and the "granularity" of the system (number of clearly defined system angles).

I assume you're talking about Poolology here. I'm not familiar with it, but it sounds like a unique kind of system that might be a better-than-usual tradeoff between complexity and granularity.

pj
chgo

I agree. And yes, I was talking about Poolology. Knowing when a shot is dead on or very close to a reference aim line without having to guess or estimate the angle is pretty handy. But the system does require a player to develop a feel for fine tuning when needed, mainly when the ob is more than 3ft or so from the pocket, as you've pointed out. Oh....and I like the term "granularity".

A great way to fine tune any known reference aim line is to use your ferrule as a gauge. For example, aiming 1/8 of a ferrule thinner or thicker when needed equates to about a 1.5° adjustment in aim. So if you know 100% that a shot is a touch thinner than a 3/4 ball aim, or a 1/2 ball, or a 5/8, or whatever known aiming reference line, then you can adjust that quite easily by aiming 1/4 or 1/8 of a ferrule thinner. A 1/4 ferrule adjustment is about a 1/16 fractional aim difference (~3°), and a 1/8 ferrule adjustment is about a 1/32 fractional aim difference (~1.5°). With practice, this can be so fine-tuned that's accurate enough for almost any shot anywhere on the table.

 

[BC21]

I am a feel player, a just see it and do it player, but on some shots I use a system. If I played 40hrs per week I'd probably see those shots enough to get to know them pretty well, but I don't. Aiming is no different than any other task in this game.... the more tools you have to help with a task, the better equipped you are to perform that task.

 

[lfigueroa]

The problem with aiming systems is the false assumption that the player is setting up and shooting with the locked mechanical precision of a robot.

Players look at a shot and get down into shooting position with a setup that has already factored in the requirements of the shot to pocket the ball and achieve position. IOWs, they are already on the shot line. And if everything looks good they pull the trigger. If not, they make whatever small last minute micro-adjustments needed with their body. That can be relaxing or tightening their bridge to make a small mod to the hit on the CB, adjusting their grip, and then modulating their stroke speed.

It's like any other sport -- part science, part art form.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

Already been detailed. It addresses pool more like carpentry than rocket science - thanks to CTE, the best aspect of CG.

I confess to not understanding what you mean here and pretty sure no one else does either. But if it works for you then great.

By the way, the carpenters rule is measure twice, cut once. Something that CTE aiming is very good at.

 

[JB Cases]

The problem with aiming systems is the false assumption that the player is setting up and shooting with the locked mechanical precision of a robot.

Players look at a shot and get down into shooting position with a setup that has already factored in the requirements of the shot to pocket the ball and achieve position. IOWs, they are already on the shot line. And if everything looks good they pull the trigger. If not, they make whatever small last minute micro-adjustments needed with their body. That can be relaxing or tightening their bridge to make a small mod to the hit on the CB, adjusting their grip, and then modulating their stroke speed.

It's like any other sport -- part science, part art form.

Lou Figueroa

What aiming system assumes that?

 

[BC21]

The problem with aiming systems is the false assumption that the player is setting up and shooting with the locked mechanical precision of a robot.

Players look at a shot and get down into shooting position with a setup that has already factored in the requirements of the shot to pocket the ball and achieve position. IOWs, they are already on the shot line. And if everything looks good they pull the trigger. If not, they make whatever small last minute micro-adjustments needed with their body. That can be relaxing or tightening their bridge to make a small mod to the hit on the CB, adjusting their grip, and then modulating their stroke speed.

It's like any other sport -- part science, part art form.

Lou Figueroa

I agree 100%.

My idea of an aiming system is a method that provides a specific reference or aim line for pocketing the ball. A player can then learn how to build or adjust off of that known reference in order to play position.

 

[RacerX750]

Partially…

My “system” is to stand behind the shot. See the object ball contact point. See the cueball contact point. Line them up in my vision. And step forward into and down onto the shot without losing that alignment. I wouldn’t exactly call it a system but in the preshot routine sense, it is approached systematically. And I miss when I rush through it.

And seeing the contact points sometimes comes quick and intuitively and sometimes I need to consciously do the parallel-lines technique. And ultimately I feel like the alignment is good if I see equal-overlaps on each side of the contact point alignment. So there is a little blending of approaches in there.

You described exactly what works for me. There are stretches where you almost can't miss. Then 20 minutes later I can't pocket a simple shot. For me I think it's confidence in how I see the shot at the beginning when I'm standing up. If that mindset locks in, and as you say you I don't rush and instead focus on the view of the shot line and STOP THINKING, the stoke takes care of itself and the ball drops. The challenge for me in pool and any other sport I've done is keeping the mental aspect on track. Pool has a few seconds of execution separated by 30 seconds or more of evaluation. Shutting the mind down and letting muscle memory dominate the execution phase is very difficult for me. Even a little thinking causes my grip hand to tighten or makes the stroke less than smooth. Most of the pros seem exceptionally focused, calm and purposeful during a match, steady and unwavering. I'm sure on the inside they're continually controlling their thoughts and emotions and letting their bodies, not their minds, take control. That's not easy to do.

 

[straightline]

I confess to not understanding what you mean here and pretty sure no one else does either. But if it works for you then great.

By the way, the carpenters rule is measure twice, cut once. Something that CTE aiming is very good at.

LOL CTE doesn't even measure the shot.

 

[straightline]

The problem with aiming systems is the false assumption that the player is setting up and shooting with the locked mechanical precision of a robot.

Players look at a shot and get down into shooting position with a setup that has already factored in the requirements of the shot to pocket the ball and achieve position. IOWs, they are already on the shot line. And if everything looks good they pull the trigger. If not, they make whatever small last minute micro-adjustments needed with their body. That can be relaxing or tightening their bridge to make a small mod to the hit on the CB, adjusting their grip, and then modulating their stroke speed.

It's like any other sport -- part science, part art form.

Lou Figueroa

I distinguish between aiming and shooting. Some people generalize the shot and poke at it as they've learned over the years. That's a shooting system. I line up the contacts. That's an aiming system. My shooting system, like most shooting systems, is prepared to shoot what I aim as accurately as I aim it. The aiming part is very specific - unlike the other systems.

 

[JB Cases]

LOL CTE doesn't even measure the shot.

It does in the way that the shooter needs it "measured".

 

[JB Cases]

I distinguish between aiming and shooting. Some people generalize the shot and poke at it as they've learned over the years. That's a shooting system. I line up the contacts. That's an aiming system. My shooting system, like most shooting systems, is prepared to shoot what I aim as accurately as I aim it. The aiming part is very specific - unlike the other systems.

Well then explain the specifics so that others may benefit. Unless you simply want to tell people you do something that works without teaching them how to do it. If that's the case why bother to mention it?

I also distinguish between aiming and shooting but in my study of this topic I have come to understand that improper aiming affects shooting. Just like stance and alignment can affect shooting.

Bob Jewett said something interesting that I want to follow up on. He stated that one needs to find their comfort distance from the cue ball. I am paraphrasing but the idea as I understood it is that when a person is too close or too far away then the stroke is affected and causes inconsistent striking. I think that this is demostrated most clearly when players are forced to address the ball in uncomfortable positions. But I can see a situation where a player feels comfortable without knowing that the distance they chose is causing them to not be able to stroke consistently straight. Something worth exploring for sure.

Bob created what he called a bridge board to help find the right distance. Colin Colenso also created one to show backhand English effects.

I created one years prior and then never really did much with it. Time to make a new one and experiment some more.

 

[The_JV]

By the way, the carpenters rule is measure twice, cut once. Something that CTE aiming is very good at.

Oh I thought it was miss once, adjust twice...? Just having fun with ya

 

[JB Cases]

I agree 100%.

My idea of an aiming system is a method that provides a specific reference or aim line for pocketing the ball. A player can then learn how to build or adjust off of that known reference in order to play position.

You can't agree 100% with Lou here. Not if you teach/sell an aiming system.

Lou is saying that players are already on the shot line instinctively and make constant adjustments and this is simply not true and it goes against all teaching on the subject.

I once had a conversation with Johnny Archer on the subject of aiming. He said that regardless of how one aims being completely solid when down is more important.

He gave Buddy Hall as an example and said that "Buddy's big paws allowed him to have a rock solid bridge and made it easier for him to deliver the cue with no extra movement".

All conventional teaching says don't adjust your aim while you are down. So if you agree with Lou here then you are saying that none of that matters and being close to the shot line is enough as long as you can adjust while down to a vector that works.

Lou is a pure-feel player. He might be doing what he describes but he certainly can't speak for everyone. I can promise you that if you had introduced poology in 1999 then you would be as much a victim of Lou's mocking as Hal and his students have been.

I watched your inscribed angle video again yesterday. The fact is that while it might be correct in how you described it it really doesn't matter because it works as you teach it. But Lou thinks that your system (and by extension it's creator) thinks that people are robotic. You have never said that as far as I know and neither has any other person promoting any other aiming system.

Lou is only here to make general statements on a subject he knows almost nothing about. Please don't indulge him just because you haven't been on his target list.

I could be wrong about what I am about to say but I believe that you wouldn't have created your system and others wouldn't have discovered/created theirs of it weren't for the efforts of Hal Houle to promote the idea of aiming systems and others taking those ideas and teaching/refining them.

I believe that the past 22 years of "arguing", knocking and mocking have in fact introduced aiming systems to hundreds of thousands of players and caused some of them to start thinking deeper in the subject of aiming. Some of them have indeed come up with methods that are great and work.

Lou's criticism from the beginning is been that aiming systems are not good and players who use them are deficient and leaning on bad crutches. I know you don't feel that way.

You don't have to believe me but I promise you that you would be his target in the absence of others who have been his targets. He has been banned from or driven out of other forums for the same behavior he exhibits here because there he was not in any way protected from being told exactly what people thought of his "commentary".

Anyway, that my 2cts on this.

 

[JB Cases]

Oh I thought it was miss once, adjust twice...? Just having fun with ya

Good one

 

[JoeyInCali]

Non-systemers is still leading 2 to 1.
Bastards.

 

[BC21]

You can't agree 100% with Lou here. Not if you teach/sell an aiming system.

Lou is saying that players are already on the shot line instinctively and make constant adjustments and this is simply not true and it goes against all teaching on the subject.

I once had a conversation with Johnny Archer on the subject of aiming. He said that regardless of how one aims being completely solid when down is more important.

He gave Buddy Hall as an example and said that "Buddy's big paws allowed him to have a rock solid bridge and made it easier for him to deliver the cue with no extra movement".

All conventional teaching says don't adjust your aim while you are down. So if you agree with Lou here then you are saying that none of that matters and being close to the shot line is enough as long as you can adjust while down to a vector that works.

Lou is a pure-feel player. He might be doing what he describes but he certainly can't speak for everyone. I can promise you that if you had introduced poology in 1999 then you would be as much a victim of Lou's mocking as Hal and his students have been.

I watched your inscribed angle video again yesterday. The fact is that while it might be correct in how you described it it really doesn't matter because it works as you teach it. But Lou thinks that your system (and by extension it's creator) thinks that people are robotic. You have never said that as far as I know and neither has any other person promoting any other aiming system.

Lou is only here to make general statements on a subject he knows almost nothing about. Please don't indulge him just because you haven't been on his target list.

I could be wrong about what I am about to say but I believe that you wouldn't have created your system and others wouldn't have discovered/created theirs of it weren't for the efforts of Hal Houle to promote the idea of aiming systems and others taking those ideas and teaching/refining them.

I believe that the past 22 years of "arguing", knocking and mocking have in fact introduced aiming systems to hundreds of thousands of players and caused some of them to start thinking deeper in the subject of aiming. Some of them have indeed come up with methods that are great and work.

Lou's criticism from the beginning is been that aiming systems are not good and players who use them are deficient and leaning on bad crutches. I know you don't feel that way.

You don't have to believe me but I promise you that you would be his target in the absence of others who have been his targets. He has been banned from or driven out of other forums for the same behavior he exhibits here because there he was not in any way protected from being told exactly what people thought of his "commentary".

Anyway, that my 2cts on this.

Lol..... I had never even heard of Hal Houle when I came up with Poolology. That was in about 2010.

And yes I agree 100% with Lou, because we aren't robots. A good aiming system or aiming method can provide an aim line that the player can easily imagine before going into the stance. But as the player drops into the shot, they must ensure that everything is aligned appropriately, based on their aiming references ,and they must account for any cb spin being applied, speed of the shot, etc.... and all of these things are not robotic. They are adjustments to the general line of aim.

 

[JB Cases]

Non-systemers is still leading 2 to 1.
Bastards.

And? 50% of respondents said they use an aiming system in full of in part.

If you were to do some lazy extrapolation then it means that out of a million players 500,000 of then consciously and deliberately use aiming systems.

Likely more than that as ghost ball itself is an aiming system and most players use gb in part for some shots.

Amazing to think that out of ten million pool players 5 million of them use aiming systems. And that number is only going to increase.

Thanks in part to people like you who knock and mock and keep the idea of aiming systems in front of pool players. I admire your dedication to the knock as every bit of promotion helps to get players interested in how to aim better.

I know you don't think you are helping but you are. The best way to insure that more people try something is to continually talk about it and you are one of those who likes to keep aiming system conversations going.

Every single time you reply to a thread with a mocking/knocking post you create an opportunity for replies that continue the conversation. Thank you for that.

 

[JB Cases]

Lol..... I had never even heard of Hal Houle when I came up with Poolology. That was in about 2010.

And yes I agree 100% with Lou, because we aren't robots. A good aiming system or aiming method can provide an aim line that the player can easily imagine before going into the stance. But as the player drops into the shot, they must ensure that everything is aligned appropriately, based on their aiming references ,and they must account for any cb spin being applied, speed of the shot, etc.... and all of these things are not robotic. They are adjustments to the general line of aim.

Ok. Never heard of any other system, not cte or any other? Never saw any aiming system discussion?

Ok, I got you. You think that that poolology is unnecessary since players can easily imagine the right shot line. If the shooter can easily imagine the shot line then why are there any aiming systems at all?

Even ghost ball is not needed in that case.

I did some experiments with my staff and found that they could not easily imagine the shot line. I would have personally loved my time playing pool these past 35 years if imagining the shot line were easy.

Anyway my intention was not too argue with you. Lou is not correct here and if you agree with him then neither are you.

Regarding aiming systems in general there is not one single person who is a creators/seller/promoter of them who has claimed that players are robotic. Not one, not ever.

That's a red herring strawman nonsensical point which is completely wrong.

And the idea that players are doing all sorts of moving and adjusting of their aim while down is also not a true statement. Some players do this and it is generally not considered to be good form. Most good players that I observe do not try to aim while down, they aim standing up and go into shooting position with a chosen shot line. They often get up if they don't like the view from ball address and re-aim and go back to back address.

However if I am wrong then please provide plenty of video evidence of this aiming while down that Lou and you claim is the default action of pool players.

 

[JoeyInCali]

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

They are supplemental at best

 

[lfigueroa]

What aiming system assumes that?

For starters, the one that outlines things in such massive choking scale as to need 400+ pages of detail ; -)

Lou Figueroa