Aiming System revisted

[pete lafond]

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm afraid you misinterpreted my meaning. I meant that you should be aiming the cue, instead of the cueball. You said before that most top players are looking at a spot on the object ball, and I believe you are probably right. Most players do, even top players. I beat many of them playing that way for years. But when people would ask me what I was looking at when I played my best, I didn't know, because it was feel like you have said, I zoned out and wasn't really focusing on a spot.

Later, I realized that was the problem. Under pressure, the harder I tried to make the ball, the more likely I was to miss, because I was focusing more on the spot on the ball, and more on really following through so that the cueball doesn't curve off line, which makes it very hard to make the ball. You must be shooting your cue on a different line of aim than you are looking at using that method.

The correct way, imo, is to aim along the cue stick line to the point it must go to in order to pocket the ball using the english you desire without curving the cueball. If you are using center ball, cutting 90 degrees that will be shooting the center of your cue stick 1 and 1/8 inches outside of the object ball. Straight outside english it is 2 and 1/4 inches outside the object ball sighting along the inside edge of the cue. Straight inside it is just inside the object ball sighting along the outside of the cue.

Lower and higher english will reduce the offsets and you must concentrate on not letting the cueball curve. At 9 o'clock english it would be 5/16 inches. It's harder to keep out the curve using high, so I avoid high side english unless the object ball is very close.

I think a lot of people get confused by using a little english. A full stroke doesn't care if you are 1/2 tip or 1 tip over, you can deflect the cueball to the same spot, one will have more spin. When shooting easy, it's easier to use a lot of english to deflect the ball quickly.

Sorry bout the misunderstanding. I was happy to have a compliment, and I try not to bash, but I don't always succeed!

unknownpro

I believe the great Ralph S. shoots the same way you do.

When I am playing a very difficult and critical shot w/o English I will pull my cue stick back in a very straight line away from the spot on the OB as if I am fighting a large rubber band pulling my stick forward. Almost as if I were doing isometrics. and then stroke straight forward as if a rubber band were catapulting. I learned this from Julio (Ronnie) who is one of the top pressure players. Works very well.

 

[stroke]

I was just working on this today. I find that if I look near the base of the ball, I can see the angle much better. It also allows me to see the entire shot. I can pinch my shots with precision like this. Someone please try it and let me know if it works for you.

 

[Koop]

Almost as if I were doing isometrics. and then stroke straight forward as if a rubber band were catapulting. I learned this from Julio (Ronnie) who is one of the top pressure players. Works very well.

Pete,

This is a great analogy and something I try to do on the long straight shots. I actually figured it out on my own but when you do it right it works very well.

Regards,
Koop

 

[mnShooter]

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm afraid you misinterpreted my meaning. I meant that you should be aiming the cue, instead of the cueball. You said before that most top players are looking at a spot on the object ball, and I believe you are probably right. Most players do, even top players. I beat many of them playing that way for years. But when people would ask me what I was looking at when I played my best, I didn't know, because it was feel like you have said, I zoned out and wasn't really focusing on a spot.

Later, I realized that was the problem. Under pressure, the harder I tried to make the ball, the more likely I was to miss, because I was focusing more on the spot on the ball, and more on really following through so that the cueball doesn't curve off line, which makes it very hard to make the ball. You must be shooting your cue on a different line of aim than you are looking at using that method.

The correct way, imo, is to aim along the cue stick line to the point it must go to in order to pocket the ball using the english you desire without curving the cueball. If you are using center ball, cutting 90 degrees that will be shooting the center of your cue stick 1 and 1/8 inches outside of the object ball. Straight outside english it is 2 and 1/4 inches outside the object ball sighting along the inside edge of the cue. Straight inside it is just inside the object ball sighting along the outside of the cue.

Lower and higher english will reduce the offsets and you must concentrate on not letting the cueball curve. At 9 o'clock english it would be 5/16 inches. It's harder to keep out the curve using high, so I avoid high side english unless the object ball is very close.

I think a lot of people get confused by using a little english. A full stroke doesn't care if you are 1/2 tip or 1 tip over, you can deflect the cueball to the same spot, one will have more spin. When shooting easy, it's easier to use a lot of english to deflect the ball quickly.

Sorry bout the misunderstanding. I was happy to have a compliment, and I try not to bash, but I don't always succeed!

unknownpro

What do you mean by "without curving the cueball"? Do you mean hitting it firm enough so the spin doesn't have a chance to grab?

I think the thing these aiming systems do is make you focus more on the object ball throughout the shot. That is why they really help.

 

[TheConArtist]

Do all the pros keep their heads on the same line on each shot and cut, or do they on half table cuts use both eyes with chin over cue and other cuts use rifle aiming? I read this somewhere that they change it like that but just wanted to get your guys opinions and response Thanks.

 

[Koop]

Aiming systems are mostly crap. They may be worthwhile in theory but in practice the only way to play is to figure out the place on the object ball you want the cueball to hit and then make it go there. Of the two, the second part is the tricky bit

Hi Gromulan,

Isn't figuring out the place to hit on the object ball the start of an aiming system? Then a similar spot has to be determined one way or another on the CB. You can't pick out a spot on the OB and hit it just anywhere you please with the CB. Otherwise, you'll miss, regardless of the stroke.

I tell students it's a little like competitive target shooting. Any numbskull can figure out how to aim a gun, making the bullet go where you aim it is a whole other thing. That's why they give Olympic medals for it.

I can understand making the CB go where you are aiming it because there is movement in a number of different areas of the body that must remain on target along with the cue, but how do you make a bullet go where you aim it.
It isn't even the same thing when you think about it. Because with a rifle, it's the total absence of movement. You have to have nerves of steel, you can't flinch or jerk, you can't breath, nothing. I was a marksman in the military so I know all too well the intricacies of firing a rifle.
You get Olympic medals for hitting the bullseye and you win matches for the same reason but both start with aiming.
Just to validate this I can tell you that I wear glasses. The first year I qualified I just barely made it through because I didn't realize I needed them. The next year, with glasses, I hit 40 out of 40 and the only thing that changed was my sight. Nothing in my set-up or stance changed, only the fact that I could see what the heck I was aiming at.

If you are missing shots it's about 99% likely that it's not because of how you're aiming, but rather the result of not making the cue ball go where you aim.

Not quite sure where that figure comes from but I would guess it is grossly off the mark. There just aren't that many bad strokes out there, especially among the pro's.

Kind regards,
Koop

 

[TheConArtist]

what ever happened to this Link
http://www.joetucker.net/linked_pages/dvd_aiming_workout_preview.htm

i check it out once but now it seems to be broken. I just wanted to see this again and btw does anyone know the link to the exhibition of Semih Sayginer i recall seeing the link to a clip of him doing some amazing things with the cueball. Thanks

 

[Hal]

If you are missing shots it's about 99% likely that it's not because of how you're aiming, but rather the result of not making the cue ball go where you aim.

I do not agree with this statement.

 

[Omar]

There's the problem, you are aiming the cueball instead of your cue. I think the reason you played ok without your glasses is that you don't have to see the ball clearly to tell where the center is.

unknownpro

The reality is that on most shots there is not a single point that the object ball must be struck at to be pocketed. There is actually a range of places where you can be successful. This is due to several factors, the pocket size/ball size ratio, the angle of approach to the pocket, the degree of cut angle, etc. As far as cut angle goes, my experience seem to suggest a bell curve. Half ball hits have the largest margin of error, with straight ins and ninety degree cuts having the least.

Everybody uses some "system" to determine the cut angle necessary to successfully pocket a ball. And everybody has certain shots they miss the same way every time. For example, I am right handed. Let's say I am cutting a ball in the kitchen into the left corner pocket. I had a habit of hitting this shot too thick. Aligning my cue on the shot line and using that as a guide to approach the shot corrected the problem. Was my geometry bad, or was I missing because I got myself into an unnatural body position stretching across the side pocket?

I am guessing anybody who has been playing for more than a year can judge the cut angle just fine. 90% of the misses are more likely caused by not accounting for swerve or squirt, having the head tilted or at the wrong elevation, taking too long a backswing, or not being aligned on the shot plane in the first place.

 

[Omar]

Koop said:

"Not quite sure where that figure comes from but I would guess it is grossly off the mark. There just aren't that many bad strokes out there, especially among the pro's."


I don't think it's the pros who are scouring the internet for aiming systems.

 

[Flex]

what ever happened to this Link
http://www.joetucker.net/linked_pages/dvd_aiming_workout_preview.htm

i check it out once but now it seems to be broken. I just wanted to see this again and btw does anyone know the link to the exhibition of Semih Sayginer i recall seeing the link to a clip of him doing some amazing things with the cueball. Thanks

Try this:

http://www.joetucker.net/start.html

 

[jsp]

...As far as cut angle goes, my experience seem to suggest a bell curve. Half ball hits have the largest margin of error, with straight ins and ninety degree cuts having the least.

Geometrically speaking, this makes no sense.

This curve you're speaking of should be strictly monotonic. Straight-ins always have the largest margin of aiming error, and it should only go down from there the more cut angle you have.

 

[TheConArtist]

Try this:

http://www.joetucker.net/start.html

Thanks ..... What about the link to Semih Sayginer exhibition LOL, anyways i have to say Semih did some amazing things with that ball

 

[Koop]

Koop said:

"Not quite sure where that figure comes from but I would guess it is grossly off the mark. There just aren't that many bad strokes out there, especially among the pro's."


I don't think it's the pros who are scouring the internet for aiming systems.

Hi Omar,

Why would they need to when they have a system down pat?
Watch them closely and you'll see. Danny Basavich looks like he's aiming his stick right over the cueball and a lot of the Filipino players are practically laying their cues on the table when aligning their shots.
Very few, if any at all, are aiming at the center of the cueball on their initial setup.

Koop

 

[gromulan]

Not quite sure where that figure comes from but I would guess it is grossly off the mark. There just aren't that many bad strokes out there, especially among the pro's.

Kind regards,
Koop

I stand by what I said, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a result of stroke. Often the cause of misses by amateur players is a result of setup, not stroke. They setup to a shot in such a way that they don't deliver the cue ball where they are aiming. I suppose though that you could say that they therefore didn't 'aim' properly. That would be fair enough.

My comparison is probably a little off, because in actuality the act of aiming a rifle is quite different from the 'aiming' we do at pool, especially since at pool the focus is on the target, and not the sights. What I'm generally trying to get at with that statement is that if you're missing balls, it's probably due to technique, and not to the fact that you're picking the wrong target.

At the pro level I would say that most misses are caused because their stroke breaks down, usually due to pressure, or perhaps due to a loss of feel on a new table. But remember, at the pro level, we're not talking about that many misses

 

[Koop]

I stand by what I said, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a result of stroke. Often the cause of misses by amateur players is a result of setup, not stroke. They setup to a shot in such a way that they don't deliver the cue ball where they are aiming. I suppose though that you could say that they therefore didn't 'aim' properly. That would be fair enough.

My comparison is probably a little off, because in actuality the act of aiming a rifle is quite different from the 'aiming' we do at pool, especially since at pool the focus is on the target, and not the sights. What I'm generally trying to get at with that statement is that if you're missing balls, it's probably due to technique, and not to the fact that you're picking the wrong target.

At the pro level I would say that most misses are caused because their stroke breaks down, usually due to pressure, or perhaps due to a loss of feel on a new table. But remember, at the pro level, we're not talking about that many misses

I appreciate the fact that we can disagree with civility but we are definitely going to have to agree to disagree.

In my humble opinion the only thing that matters is that you aim at the correct spot and deliver the cue ball to that spot. I don't know how stance would make a difference, case in point, Bustamante can shoot balls in the hole behind his back just about as good as he can from a normal position. This suggests to me that stance has very little to do with pocketing balls.

Regards,
Koop

 

[pete lafond]

Hi Omar,

Why would they need to when they have a system down pat?
Watch them closely and you'll see. Danny Basavich looks like he's aiming his stick right over the cueball and a lot of the Filipino players are practically laying their cues on the table when aligning their shots.
Very few, if any at all, are aiming at the center of the cueball on their initial setup.

Koop

Add BHE and then what? The object to aiming is to pick the spot on the OB where the CB must make contact.

Given the CB curves and pushes, or just goes straight as expect. The player through experience knows how conditions are playing and adjusts accordingly. How the CB gets there is feel developed through experience of playing. Some adapt earlier than others.

We all have a method to handle pressure "must make shots" where we are willing to comprimise position. In a zone we simply pick up the spot on the OB much faster, almost to the point we do not realize it.


.

 

[gromulan]

I appreciate the fact that we can disagree with civility but we are definitely going to have to agree to disagree.

In my humble opinion the only thing that matters is that you aim at the correct spot and deliver the cue ball to that spot. I don't know how stance would make a difference, case in point, Bustamante can shoot balls in the hole behind his back just about as good as he can from a normal position. This suggests to me that stance has very little to do with pocketing balls.

You are correct, to an extent - the only thing that matters is delivering the ball to the correct spot. However, if you really think that the stance and body position aren't the first and, arguably, most important part of doing that successfully, then you had better talk to some of the snooker players. They have extensive evidence that using a correct stance is of paramount importance.

Now that doesn't negate the fact that it's possible to use some pretty unorthadox stances and still be successful, even to the extent of Bustamante going behind the back, but many of those are the result of years of practice and trial and error.

 

[pete lafond]

I appreciate the fact that we can disagree with civility but we are definitely going to have to agree to disagree.

In my humble opinion the only thing that matters is that you aim at the correct spot and deliver the cue ball to that spot. I don't know how stance would make a difference, case in point, Bustamante can shoot balls in the hole behind his back just about as good as he can from a normal position. This suggests to me that stance has very little to do with pocketing balls.

Regards,
Koop

Good points. I joke with people when I occasionally go to the driving range and tell them that stance and back swing mean zero. How I do this is I will stand at the tee at the driving range facing the flag I'm aiming for. Yes, both feet are parallel and pointing outward towards the flag. The ball is beside me on my right side. I then turn and hit the ball and it has a nice flight onto the target with almost no loss of distance.


What matters is the final delivery and yes a proper stance helps and so many other things also, but it is delivery of the cue tip to the point intended that makes the difference.

 

[Koop]

You are correct, to an extent - the only thing that matters is delivering the ball to the correct spot. However, if you really think that the stance and body position aren't the first and, arguably, most important part of doing that successfully, then you had better talk to some of the snooker players. They have extensive evidence that using a correct stance is of paramount importance.

Now that doesn't negate the fact that it's possible to use some pretty unorthadox stances and still be successful, even to the extent of Bustamante going behind the back, but many of those are the result of years of practice and trial and error.

Thanks for the thumbs down. I guess the agreeable part is out the window.
You stand by your theory and I'll stick to mine.

In the case of stance, I still say it is meaningless. It is just however comfortable you are at the table. If stance was that important then every good player would look the same at the table and they do not.
The two things they have in common are: knowing where to aim and delivering the cueball to the point of contact. Other than those two things, in my opinion, well, it's like a dress on a pig