Aiming techniques

[Teacherman]

The contact spot is irrelevant at the time of execution, if you take your aiming a step further. Start with the ghost ball, and from this determine the line of your stick. This line and the line to the pocket form an angle. This angle is easily determined after some practice. Soon you won't even use the ghost ball.

Keep your stick, while stroking, on the line, without violating the cue ball, and the ball goes in.

The angle can always be seen.

 

[FLICKit]

Keep your stick, while stroking, on the line, without violating the cue ball, and the ball goes in.

Teacherman is very familiar with violating the cue ball. What a sicko perv?

 

[CaptainJR]

The contact spot is irrelevant at the time of execution, if you take your aiming a step further. Start with the ghost ball, and from this determine the line of your stick. This line and the line to the pocket form an angle. This angle is easily determined after some practice. Soon you won't even use the ghost ball.

Keep your stick, while stroking, on the line, without violating the cue ball, and the ball goes in.

The angle can always be seen.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. 'The contact spot is irrelevant'? be serious.

 

[bruin70]

good post,

i think what you are describing here is the "exact equal oppossite" method. you find the contact point on the object ball, and the exact equal oppossite spot on the cue ball is what makes contact with the spot on the object ball.

its a very accurate way of aiming.

VAP

i've done this system, and i always overcut the long shots. i think it's because while it is all geometrically correct, there is a difference between the equal portion on the cb and the equal portion on the ob way down there. it's the distance that changes the equal opposites.

what i had to do to solve my problem was to actually see the cb point a little fuller than it actually is.

along these lines,,,,a good ervolino trick(when the shot is difficult and position is the least of your worries) is to simply line up one tip inside from center CB exactly to the point of contact point(NOT aim point). believe it or not, this worked with almost any angled shot. i think the brain is making subtle adjustments to what is essentially a "one aim fits all" technique.

i luv talking aim systems. GOD i need one.

 

[CaptainJR]

i've done this system, and i always overcut the long shots. i think it's because while it is all geometrically correct, there is a difference between the equal portion on the cb and the equal portion on the ob way down there. it's the distance that changes the equal opposites.

what i had to do to solve my problem was to actually see the cb point a little fuller than it actually is.

along these lines,,,,a good ervolino trick(when the shot is difficult and position is the least of your worries) is to simply line up one tip inside from center CB exactly to the point of contact point(NOT aim point). believe it or not, this worked with almost any angled shot. i think the brain is making subtle adjustments to what is essentially a "one aim fits all" technique.

i luv talking aim systems. GOD i need one.

Is everything I write today going to be negative? Sorry

bruin
If your using this I certainly understand why your last line said 'you need an aiming system'. You just can't generalize and say 'point your stick at the contact point' Cut shots can range from let's say 1 degrees to maybe 87 degree. Putting your stick one tip inside center and aiming at the contact point only works on one of these angles at any given distance. The distance becomes involved because of deflection. If your using this and making balls you are just fooling yourself and your feel with the stick is actually doing something your not aware of. Just as surely as the ghost ball is geometrically correct, what your talking about can't work. Sorry but it is impossible.

 

[Williebetmore]

i think the brain is making subtle adjustments to what is essentially a "one aim fits all" technique.

i luv talking aim systems. GOD i need one.

Bruin,
I will tell you that I was very impressed with the Spider, it is GREAT at showing you the exact contact point. I've always had a little trouble in determining the exact contact point on the horizontal axis of the object ball. A few minutes with the Spider really helps. A little expensive, but if you work much with beginning players definitely worth it.

You would be very interested in Hal Houle's aiming system. I went through some of the systems with a friend who has worked with Hal. This system and variations worked well (at least for slight cuts and radical cuts - didn't seem to work as well for close to half ball hits) without even looking at the pocket or the contact point - strange but true. Trouble is, it seems to require quite a bit of fiddling with front and back hands; but it certainly seems to work - for me more of a curiosity than something I will use regularly.

 

[drivermaker]

You would be very interested in Hal Houle's aiming system. I went through some of the systems with a friend who has worked with Hal. This system and variations worked well (at least for slight cuts and radical cuts - didn't seem to work as well for close to half ball hits) without even looking at the pocket or the contact point - strange but true. Trouble is, it seems to require quite a bit of fiddling with front and back hands; but it certainly seems to work - for me more of a curiosity than something I will use regularly.

But as Yogi might say..."You would use it more regularly if you used it more regularly". My suggestion is, use it more regularly. Then learn MORE of his systems for those half ball cuts and others that aren't working now. The back hand usage is as much of a key as the visual/alignment part.

 

[Teacherman]

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. 'The contact spot is irrelevant'? be serious.

How many guys have you heard about that are looking at the cue ball when they shoot?

How relevant is the contact point to them?

 

[bruin70]

The contact spot is irrelevant at the time of execution, if you take your aiming a step further. Start with the ghost ball, and from this determine the line of your stick. This line and the line to the pocket form an angle. This angle is easily determined after some practice. Soon you won't even use the ghost ball.

Keep your stick, while stroking, on the line, without violating the cue ball, and the ball goes in.

The angle can always be seen.

this is difficult for me. the angle is all i see. i was alluding to the "contact point" as a means of convenience. it is actually angles that i shoot for. i WISH i could always see the pure angle.

the problem is that a cb/ob/pocket angle succumbs to illusion. which is why, for instance, the hidden pocket is such a hard angle to digest. at these times(like the hidden pocket shot or any angle that confuses the sh*t out of me) that i fell i need something more concrete to see,,,,like a contact point. that is my search

 

[bruin70]

Is everything I write today going to be negative? Sorry

bruin
If your using this I certainly understand why your last line said 'you need an aiming system'. You just can't generalize and say 'point your stick at the contact point' Cut shots can range from let's say 1 degrees to maybe 87 degree. Putting your stick one tip inside center and aiming at the contact point only works on one of these angles at any given distance. The distance becomes involved because of deflection. If your using this and making balls you are just fooling yourself and your feel with the stick is actually doing something your not aware of. Just as surely as the ghost ball is geometrically correct, what your talking about can't work. Sorry but it is impossible.

of course it won't work on extreme cuts etc, but i was actually amazed at the range of angles it worked for. yes,,,one would think that deflection et.al.would come into play. couldn't explain why if i tried. kinda like "how can pivot english work?",,,,,same reasoning.

 

[Teacherman]

i need something more concrete to see,,,,like a contact point. that is my search

Why do you need to see a contact point when your stick is pointed somewhere else on a very high percentage of the shots?

 

[CaptainJR]

How many guys have you heard about that are looking at the cue ball when they shoot?

How relevant is the contact point to them?

Nobody when making a cut shot looks at the cue ball. There are some that look at the cue ball when breaking because they are hitting so hard, but on a regular shot 'cut shot, bank, combo, not break) everyone that can shoot any good at all, looks at the object ball.

Your showing your ignorance here again teacherman, careful now.

 

[CaptainJR]

of course it won't work on extreme cuts etc, but i was actually amazed at the range of angles it worked for. yes,,,one would think that deflection et.al.would come into play. couldn't explain why if i tried. kinda like "how can pivot english work?",,,,,same reasoning.

Just trying to be helpful. As I said above, if it is working on a range of shots, it is something your subconscious is doing. This can't work and if you want to move on in your game you need to dispose of this bogus theory and work with one of the systems that will work. The one I explain in this thread is good and comprehensive, but there are others.

 

[Teacherman]

Nobody when making a cut shot looks at the cue ball. There are some that look at the cue ball when breaking because they are hitting so hard, but on a regular shot 'cut shot, bank, combo, not break) everyone that can shoot any good at all, looks at the object ball.

Your showing your ignorance here again teacherman, careful now.

Read Bob Byrnes book(s) and then tell me about ignorance.

Answer the other question. If your stick is alligned somewhere other than at the contact point, why do you need to see it?

After all, your hand eye coordination will take the tip of the stick to where you're looking. Proven fact. After all, the stick is in your hands, not the balls.

So why look at the contact point?

I love this. Talking science with a pool player.

 

[drivermaker]

if you want to move on in your game you need to dispose of this bogus theory and work with one of the systems that will work. The one I explain in this thread is good and comprehensive, but there are others.

Cap...I guess you have no idea or no knowledge of Hal's systems. They require NO, let me say it again, NO contact points. And as Teacherman says, your cue is aiming in a completely different direction. Not that he's advocating Hal's methods, but there are similarities.

 

[Teacherman]

Give me the details on Hal's method. Never heard his name before.

 

[CaptainJR]

Cap...I guess you have no idea or no knowledge of Hal's systems. They require NO, let me say it again, NO contact points. And as Teacherman says, your cue is aiming in a completely different direction. Not that he's advocating Hal's methods, but there are similarities.

I remember a little bit of reading about it in another aiming thread hear. As I recall it is pretty much bogus as well. Another point your stick theory and none of those work.

 

[Williebetmore]

Nobody when making a cut shot looks at the cue ball. There are some that look at the cue ball when breaking because they are hitting so hard, but on a regular shot 'cut shot, bank, combo, not break) everyone that can shoot any good at all, looks at the object ball.

Your showing your ignorance here again teacherman, careful now.

Captain,
AAAARGH!! Actually, there is nothing at all wrong with looking at the cueball last during a stroke (once you are in perfect alignment). Certainly most American pool pro's look at the object ball last on most shots (the exception being cue ball frozen to the rail/shooting away from the rail, I think most pro's look at the cueball last when stroking off the rail). Of interest my research indicates that almost all of the great snooker players look at the cueball last on almost ALL of their shots - it's certainly a valid technique. I believe most snooker instruction in the U.K. stresses looking at the cue ball while stroking (help from our U.K. experts). I wonder if the snooker players turned 9-ball players (ie. Karen, Allison, Kelly) change this aspect of their game?

I have it from good sources that Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry, and Ronnie O'Sullivan look at the cue ball last. My Joe Davis book also stresses this. Is it your contention that they "can't play at all???" I think that the stroke determines your level of play, not where you are looking as you stroke. I know at least one player that will hammer you if you allow him to set up, then shoot with eyes completely closed. Where you are looking shouldn't matter a lot with a proper setup. JMO. C'mon now, let's hear something positive today.

 

[drivermaker]

Give me the details on Hal's method. Never heard his name before.

This is a subject that causes a shitstorm of shitstorms on all of the forums. Out of respect to Hal (Houle), those that have been taught by him don't put it down in writing, and those that have NOT been taught end up saying that it's all garbage, impossible, geometrically ridiculous, or everyone that promotes it is part of a brainwashed sect. I have the utmost respect for Hal, so the above should tell you where I'm going with this. However, if you'd like to speak to him yourself, PM and I'll give you his phone #. In your case, you're experiencing some of it right now, so you should understand.

 

[vapoolplayer]

I remember a little bit of reading about it in another aiming thread hear. As I recall it is pretty much bogus as well. Another point your stick theory and none of those work.

i don't mean to be devil's advocate here.........but have you contacted hal to learn his methods? have you tried his methods? if not then i would not say that they do not work.

i personaly have not contacted hal, but plan to.

VAP