Aiming techniques

[CaptainJR]

Brief note: Spot on object ball does not always correspond to path of the object ball. You can hit the exact same spot on object ball and get many different object ball paths as a result. You can use english or throw and alter the path by a few degrees. You can line up on an object ball, and simply place the cue ball in various different angles, if each hit the exact same spot on object ball, will result in various different object ball paths (some very minor). Minor differences are not usually significant because ball will still go into pocket. English, throw, cling, speed,... all can impact path of the object ball.

If you need more proof, then try this experiment. Put a ball about 4 inches from pocket. Mark a spot on table at least 2 feet away and put object ball there. Put cue ball anywhere you want, and try to send object ball, into ball near pocket and make that second ball cleanly into pocket (no rails). You will very clearly see the differences in your object ball path.

Flickit
I do play pool. I believe that most posters in this thread know that after you do whatever you do to aim, be it feel or spot or whatever, you need to adjust for english, throw, deflection and so forth. Having to adjust for it afterward doesn't change how your original aim came about.

 

[FLICKit]

Flickit
I do play pool. I believe that most posters in this thread know that after you do whatever you do to aim, be it feel or spot or whatever, you need to adjust for english, throw, deflection and so forth. Having to adjust for it afterward doesn't change how your original aim came about.

Yeah figured that, but couldn't be so sure. It's also obvious that people have different approaches (i.e. looking at spot on ball, looking at path, or looking at angles... or looking at object ball last or cue ball last)...

Just have to accept that people have differences (more than one would typically imagine). Can't knock others, just cuz it's different than your own. That's the purpose of the topic of this thread is to hear other differing aiming points of views.

 

[CaptainJR]

Yeah figured that, but couldn't be so sure. It's also obvious that people have different approaches (i.e. looking at spot on ball, looking at path, or looking at angles... or looking at object ball last or cue ball last)...

Just have to accept that people have differences (more than one would typically imagine). Can't knock others, just cuz it's different than your own. That's the purpose of the topic of this thread is to hear other differing aiming points of views.

I didn't mean to knock others just because they are different. I did get a little carried away when I said what I said about Hal's system. I shouldn't have said that because I don't know that system. From what was said I got the impression that it wasn't based on the contact point of the object ball. If it doesn't include the contact point on the object ball, it can't work. Unless it really does include the contact point without even mentioning it. That could be possible I guess. Reiterating what I said in post #100 in this thread. If you don't have the contact point on the object ball, either consciously or subconsciously you have nothing to base a line or angle on. Some where in your aiming you must see the path that the object ball is going to take on it's way to the pocket. What is at the beginning of that path? The contact point. The better you get, the more often knowing where the contact point is in the subconscious. (being able to play the shot by feel) The more often it is subconscious, the more thought can be put to cue ball speed, english, etc.

Now that we have brought up compensating for english, throw, deflection, cue ball speed, etc. If you start including this, you darn well better start including the contact point in your thinking. Example in below shot on the 8 ball. The two obvious shots, either more than a little left english (cue ball position A for the 9 ball shot) or more than a little low right english (cue ball position B for the 9 ball shot) Either way this is certainly a feel shot, but in that feeling you better have a contact point in mind and you better be looking at it when you pull the trigger. I would prefer the left english, A position shot. Trying for the B position you may be taking a chance on hitting the 9 and with the wrong role you could end up with a bank shot.

Conclusion... The contact point being so important in a difficult shot such as this illustration. It only makes sense that having a contact point in mind will help you make easier shots more consistently.

 

[Teacherman]

...I shouldn't have said that because I don't know that system.

...If it doesn't include the contact point on the object ball, it can't work.

There you have it folks

The man has spoken

Your system, that he knows nothing about, can not work

 

[CaptainJR]

There you have it folks

The man has spoken

Your system, that he knows nothing about, can not work

Don't be a jackass and so obviously take something out of context by picking two small parts of a post. But I guess that's the only choice you had since your obviously not able to explain away the rest of the post.

 

[CaptainJR]

Just out of curiosity. Teacherman, can you get out from the position I illustrated about 9and1/2 times out of 10? I doubt it. I'll bet you I can.

 

[Teacherman]

I didn't mean to knock others just because they are different. I did get a little carried away when I said what I said about Hal's system. I shouldn't have said that because I don't know that system. From what was said I got the impression that it wasn't based on the contact point of the object ball. If it doesn't include the contact point on the object ball, it can't work. Unless it really does include the contact point without even mentioning it. That could be possible I guess. Reiterating what I said in post #100 in this thread. If you don't have the contact point on the object ball, either consciously or subconsciously you have nothing to base a line or angle on. Some where in your aiming you must see the path that the object ball is going to take on it's way to the pocket. What is at the beginning of that path? The contact point. The better you get, the more often knowing where the contact point is in the subconscious. (being able to play the shot by feel) The more often it is subconscious, the more thought can be put to cue ball speed, english, etc.

Now that we have brought up compensating for english, throw, deflection, cue ball speed, etc. If you start including this, you darn well better start including the contact point in your thinking. Example in below shot on the 8 ball. The two obvious shots, either more than a little left english (cue ball position A for the 9 ball shot) or more than a little low right english (cue ball position B for the 9 ball shot) Either way this is certainly a feel shot, but in that feeling you better have a contact point in mind and you better be looking at it when you pull the trigger. I would prefer the left english, A position shot. Trying for the B position you may be taking a chance on hitting the 9 and with the wrong role you could end up with a bank shot.

Conclusion... The contact point being so important in a difficult shot such as this illustration. It only makes sense that having a contact point in mind will help you make easier shots more consistently.

There you have it folks

The man has spoken

Your system, that he knows nothing about, can not work

 

[Teacherman]

Just out of curiosity. Teacherman, can you get out from the position I illustrated about 9and1/2 times out of 10? I doubt it. I'll bet you I can.

BET!!!!!!!!!!!!

.....HIGH!!!!!!!

 

[drivermaker]

I didn't mean to knock others just because they are different. I did get a little carried away when I said what I said about Hal's system. I shouldn't have said that because I don't know that system. From what was said I got the impression that it wasn't based on the contact point of the object ball. If it doesn't include the contact point on the object ball, it can't work. Unless it really does include the contact point without even mentioning it. That could be possible I guess. Reiterating what I said in post #100 in this thread. If you don't have the contact point on the object ball, either consciously or subconsciously you have nothing to base a line or angle on.

Teacherman didn't take your statements out of context. That's what you said and you're DEAD WRONG!

Let's face it, an OB and CB always "contact" each other at a certain point. However, in setting up to the shot with Hal's system, it is NOT imperative that you even try to determine it, look at it, analyze it, determine the contact point on the CB, set up on an angle to the contact point or any of it.

There are multiple systems that he has and some have an "aiming point" which is totally different than a "contact point". And some of his other systems don't even have an aiming point. It's basically a visual overlay of the CB to the OB and it's about in the same place for EVERY shot. I know this sounds ridiculous and is way over your head, but as I said yesterday...you don't even know what there is to know.

And if you keep wanting to harp on that without even knowing the system and say that a shot can't be made without identifying a contact point, I'm going to call for a removal of your cap and have it replaced with a dunce hat.
And NO, I'm NOT going to explain Hal's system in writing on this forum!

 

[FLICKit]

I didn't mean to knock others just because they are different. I did get a little carried away when I said what I said about Hal's system. I shouldn't have said that because I don't know that system. From what was said I got the impression that it wasn't based on the contact point of the object ball. If it doesn't include the contact point on the object ball, it can't work. Unless it really does include the contact point without even mentioning it. That could be possible I guess. Reiterating what I said in post #100 in this thread. If you don't have the contact point on the object ball, either consciously or subconsciously you have nothing to base a line or angle on. Some where in your aiming you must see the path that the object ball is going to take on it's way to the pocket. What is at the beginning of that path? The contact point. The better you get, the more often knowing where the contact point is in the subconscious. (being able to play the shot by feel) The more often it is subconscious, the more thought can be put to cue ball speed, english, etc.

Now that we have brought up compensating for english, throw, deflection, cue ball speed, etc. If you start including this, you darn well better start including the contact point in your thinking. Example in below shot on the 8 ball. The two obvious shots, either more than a little left english (cue ball position A for the 9 ball shot) or more than a little low right english (cue ball position B for the 9 ball shot) Either way this is certainly a feel shot, but in that feeling you better have a contact point in mind and you better be looking at it when you pull the trigger. I would prefer the left english, A position shot. Trying for the B position you may be taking a chance on hitting the 9 and with the wrong role you could end up with a bank shot.

Conclusion... The contact point being so important in a difficult shot such as this illustration. It only makes sense that having a contact point in mind will help you make easier shots more consistently.

Personally, I'm a contact point aimer as well, and would probably be willing to assume most people are. But, I'm open-minded enough to consider that other players, even good ones, may have different techniques.

One of the things that is going to obscure this issue, is that most (not necessarily all) aiming techniques are going to include a contact point in some form in it. While some may not have a distinctly defined contact point. Examples of aiming techniques
- look directly at contact point and shoot
- find contact point, imagine ghost ball then shoot
- find contact point, imagine ghost ball, imagine line between center of cue ball and center of ghost ball, ensure cue stick is on that line, then shoot
- find an angle which will lead you back to a distinct or non-distinct contact point
- find object ball destination path, and roughly locate some ambiguous contact point that'll send your object ball on that line
- look at pocket/destination and then shoot at object ball (another example whereby the contact point may or may not be very ambiguous).
- even heard of some system whereby players looks at object ball, then looks at cue ball, based on the type of english they use determines where to contact the cue ball, and shoots. As he explained it, no calculations at all. Good player. I could never duplicate what the player tried to relay....
- then of course the beginners, or clueless ones, just fire away and hope


I think you're talking about a very distinctly defined contact point. Then there are other systems that have a nondistictly defined contact point, whereby the shooter may not even be conscious of any contact point. Finally there may be some other systems that use something like, touch, feel, experience.... where they may use no contact point at all.

In the end, you can boil everything down to some contact point, because basically every shot is pocketed using some form of contact with the cue ball.

To limit this discussion of aiming techniques to contact points might be as fruitless as limiting the discussion to object ball paths, since every shot is going to result in an object ball path. Or limiting the discussion to cue ball delivery, since every shot will require the cue ball to be delivered at a destination. Or limiting to sphere collisions...

Avoid getting bogged down in the various components of a shot. The point is, that the discussion is on aiming techniques, which most people have been relaying. No need to get distracted, and we'll let people contribute to the topic at hand.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... . It only makes sense that having a contact point in mind will help you make easier shots more consistently.

There are many things that make sense that are false.

In one of his books (Complete Snooker?) Joe Davis makes the point that the contact point in some sense lies to you and that he uses "fullness of overlap" (or some similar term) to aim. I think Joe played pretty sporty. Of course, he only had one eye.

I'm not saying that conscious attention to the contact point -- even if it is the bogus one that doesn't include the effect of throw -- cannot help with aiming, but it is clear that at least one top player has stated categorically and emphatically that it's not for him.

 

[CaptainJR]

Personally, I'm a contact point aimer as well, and would probably be willing to assume most people are. But, I'm open-minded enough to consider that other players, even good ones, may have different techniques.

One of the things that is going to obscure this issue, is that most (not necessarily all) aiming techniques are going to include a contact point in some form in it. While some may not have a distinctly defined contact point. Examples of aiming techniques
- look directly at contact point and shoot
- find contact point, imagine ghost ball then shoot
- find contact point, imagine ghost ball, imagine line between center of cue ball and center of ghost ball, ensure cue stick is on that line, then shoot
- find an angle which will lead you back to a distinct or non-distinct contact point
- find object ball destination path, and roughly locate some ambiguous contact point that'll send your object ball on that line
- look at pocket/destination and then shoot at object ball (another example whereby the contact point may or may not be very ambiguous).
- even heard of some system whereby players looks at object ball, then looks at cue ball, based on the type of english they use determines where to contact the cue ball, and shoots. As he explained it, no calculations at all. Good player. I could never duplicate what the player tried to relay....
- then of course the beginners, or clueless ones, just fire away and hope


I think you're talking about a very distinctly defined contact point. Then there are other systems that have a nondistictly defined contact point, whereby the shooter may not even be conscious of any contact point. Finally there may be some other systems that use something like, touch, feel, experience.... where they may use no contact point at all.

In the end, you can boil everything down to some contact point, because basically every shot is pocketed using some form of contact with the cue ball.

To limit this discussion of aiming techniques to contact points might be as fruitless as limiting the discussion to object ball paths, since every shot is going to result in an object ball path. Or limiting the discussion to cue ball delivery, since every shot will require the cue ball to be delivered at a destination. Or limiting to sphere collisions...

Avoid getting bogged down in the various components of a shot. The point is, that the discussion is on aiming techniques, which most people have been relaying. No need to get distracted, and we'll let people contribute to the topic at hand.

Good post. I mean that.
Good enough to make me think hard about what I said. What I came up with is I think a couple of us are doing the old apples and oranges thing. The difference being the word 'system'. To me a system in pool is something that can be explained geometrically and is geometrically sound. Aiming by feel is not a system. This is where I was all wrong. It says it right in the title of the thread. The title was 'Aiming techniques' not aiming systems. I think others were talking about techniques and system, and I was restricting my thinking to just systems.

I'm in no way retracting what I said. I'm just saying that I was strictly talking about systems.

 

[Teacherman]

My aiming system is not a system because you don't like it??????????

And, you'll readily admit you don't know my system?????????

Yet, you know it isn't one????????

 

[drivermaker]

Many years ago when a person who owed money could be thrown in jail, a merchant in London had the misfortune to owe a huge sum to a money-lender.
The money-lender, who was old and ugly, fancied the merchant's teenage daughter who was drop dead knock-out gorgeous. He proposed a bargain. He said he would cancel the merchant's debt if he could have the girl instead.

Both the merchant and his daughter were horrified at the proposal. So the cunning scumbag money-lender proposed that they let "Providence" decide the matter. He told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty money-bag and then the girl would have to pick out one of the pebbles. If she chose the black pebble she would become his wife and her father's debt would be cancelled. If she chose the white pebble she would stay with her father and the debt would also be cancelled. But if she refused to pick out a pebble or didn't show up, her father would be thrown into jail and she would starve.

The father and daughter were freaking out, but with little choice the father reluctantly agreed. They were standing on a pebble-strewn path in the merchant's garden along with many of the townspeople in attendance as they talked and the money-lender stooped down to pick up the two pebbles.
As he picked up the pebbles the girl, sharp-eyed with fright, noticed that he picked up two BLACK pebbles and put them into the money-bag. He then asked the girl to pick out the pebble that was to decide her fate and that of her father.

What would YOU have done if You were that girl?

Why did I write this story regarding an aiming thread?

The reason I wrote it is because if you continually think "inside the box" the only aspect you're going to focus on when making a shot is a contact point, angle to the pocket, or path to the pocket. There are different ways of even doing that, but it still comes down to the same conclusion or methodology.

Hal's system is thinking completely "outside the box" and seeing or doing something totally different than the standard ways which are commonly known and taught.

If you can't think outside the box, you will never see or understand shooting a ball without contact points, lines, and angles. Nor will you solve this girl's dilemma. YOU'RE SUNK!! Have fun..... BTW, if you want to try to get her out of this jam, feel free to post your solutions.

 

[CaptainJR]

I had a stick made that the cue ball screwed on to the end of it. Made it as a teaching advice. The cue ball had two screw holes in it. One dead center, the other about 2 or 3 cue tips higher.

When you screwed the cue ball in the dead center hole and then placed it against the object ball you could clearly see the contact points AND the line of the stick in relation to the contact points. Very helpful tool when teaching beginners.

With the top hole of the cue ball used, you could show high english allignment, low english allignment AND you could rotate it to show left and right english. Again very helpful.

I would even have students shoot with it. Which took some getting used to it in the beginning because when you back stroke, the cue ball comes with you. But, if was very helpful in giving them a mental picture of the contact point and the sticks allignment. It also gave the student a feeling of control of the cue ball.

Finally, it also demonstrated poor strokes. Many beginners couldn't stroke the cue without the cue ball leaving the table in a sine wave type stroke.

I never said your system doesn't work. I said systems that don't include the contact point on the object ball don't work. Above is your system you talked about. It does include the contact point on the object ball and sounds rather interesting.

 

[drivermaker]

I never said your system doesn't work. I said systems that don't include the contact point on the object ball don't work.

Captain......Oh C-A-A-A-A-P-T-A-I-N-N....Your still full of shit and as wrong as they come. You ain't gettin' this either. Was one of your great, great, great, great, great, great, uncles one of the people vociferously exclaiming that the world was flat??

 

[CaptainJR]

Many years ago when a person who owed money could be thrown in jail, a merchant in London had the misfortune to owe a huge sum to a money-lender.
The money-lender, who was old and ugly, fancied the merchant's teenage daughter who was drop dead knock-out gorgeous. He proposed a bargain. He said he would cancel the merchant's debt if he could have the girl instead.

Both the merchant and his daughter were horrified at the proposal. So the cunning scumbag money-lender proposed that they let "Providence" decide the matter. He told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty money-bag and then the girl would have to pick out one of the pebbles. If she chose the black pebble she would become his wife and her father's debt would be cancelled. If she chose the white pebble she would stay with her father and the debt would also be cancelled. But if she refused to pick out a pebble or didn't show up, her father would be thrown into jail and she would starve.

The father and daughter were freaking out, but with little choice the father reluctantly agreed. They were standing on a pebble-strewn path in the merchant's garden along with many of the townspeople in attendance as they talked and the money-lender stooped down to pick up the two pebbles.
As he picked up the pebbles the girl, sharp-eyed with fright, noticed that he picked up two BLACK pebbles and put them into the money-bag. He then asked the girl to pick out the pebble that was to decide her fate and that of her father.

What would YOU have done if You were that girl?

Why did I write this story regarding an aiming thread?

The reason I wrote it is because if you continually think "inside the box" the only aspect you're going to focus on when making a shot is a contact point, angle to the pocket, or path to the pocket. There are different ways of even doing that, but it still comes down to the same conclusion or methodology.

Hal's system is thinking completely "outside the box" and seeing or doing something totally different than the standard ways which are commonly known and taught.

If you can't think outside the box, you will never see or understand shooting a ball without contact points, lines, and angles. Nor will you solve this girl's dilemma. YOU'RE SUNK!! Have fun.....

If your not going to explain it, would you please remove all responces that mention it. Don't just come in with this technique and say I have a great one but I'm not telling how it works. Your term out side the box is what leads me to beleave that this is a technique not a system. There for as I mention above we were probally talking abou two different things

 

[drivermaker]

If your not going to explain it, would you please remove all responces that mention it.

Fuck you....

 

[JimS]

Hal Houle has several systems, most of which I don't remember much about since we had contact on the phone only, about 4 yrs ago, for about 1 hour. But as I remember none on his systems used a contact point.

One system of Hal's, which I've used with some success, is an overlapping system which does not use any angles, ghost balls or contact points...none of the convential aiming methods. Yet, it is amazingly accurate using only 3 points of aim or overlap for almost every shot on the table.

When I have trouble finding the ghost ball(s) and after several seconds of aiming and still feeling unsure of the accuracy of what I'm seeing, I'll check my aim using his overlapping system and confirm whether the shot is on or not.

I"m still having good success using the two ghost ball method that I described in the beginning of this thread and my shot making percentage has definitely improved since I "discovered" this method.

I'm enjoying the input from folks and I can't help but marvel at the varied subjective methods used for getting the ob into the hole. I've also sorta "marveled" at how any thread can become, for some, a pecker contest.

 

[FLICKit]

Many years ago when a person who owed money could be thrown in jail, a merchant in London had the misfortune to owe a huge sum to a money-lender.
The money-lender, who was old and ugly, fancied the merchant's teenage daughter who was drop dead knock-out gorgeous. He proposed a bargain. He said he would cancel the merchant's debt if he could have the girl instead.

Both the merchant and his daughter were horrified at the proposal. So the cunning scumbag money-lender proposed that they let "Providence" decide the matter. He told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty money-bag and then the girl would have to pick out one of the pebbles. If she chose the black pebble she would become his wife and her father's debt would be cancelled. If she chose the white pebble she would stay with her father and the debt would also be cancelled. But if she refused to pick out a pebble or didn't show up, her father would be thrown into jail and she would starve.

The father and daughter were freaking out, but with little choice the father reluctantly agreed. They were standing on a pebble-strewn path in the merchant's garden along with many of the townspeople in attendance as they talked and the money-lender stooped down to pick up the two pebbles.
As he picked up the pebbles the girl, sharp-eyed with fright, noticed that he picked up two BLACK pebbles and put them into the money-bag. He then asked the girl to pick out the pebble that was to decide her fate and that of her father.

What would YOU have done if You were that girl?

Why did I write this story regarding an aiming thread?

The reason I wrote it is because if you continually think "inside the box" the only aspect you're going to focus on when making a shot is a contact point, angle to the pocket, or path to the pocket. There are different ways of even doing that, but it still comes down to the same conclusion or methodology.

Hal's system is thinking completely "outside the box" and seeing or doing something totally different than the standard ways which are commonly known and taught.

If you can't think outside the box, you will never see or understand shooting a ball without contact points, lines, and angles. Nor will you solve this girl's dilemma. YOU'RE SUNK!! Have fun..... BTW, if you want to try to get her out of this jam, feel free to post your solutions.

The solution is to basically to reverse the situtation, such that the fix now works in your favor instead of against you. There can be several different means of attempting this...

1. Have the money-lender pick from the pocket, with the condition that he'd have to pick a white one to keep her.

Or

2. Announce that since black is her father's favorite color, then if she picks a black stone, then she will do as he chooses, and thus if she picks a white stone she will follow the wishes of the money-lender. Since it's a 50/50 chance either way, surely the money-lender couldn't argue with that.

Or

3. Announce that her choice will be the one that remains in the pocket. So, if she picks a black stone, then the alternate color remaining in his pocket must be white.

or

4. Even better, pick the stone from his pocket but keep it hidden. Then force the money-lender to reveal the remaining stone in his pocket. If the one in his pocket is black, then the one she has would have to be the opposite.

or

5. Bit more riskier... Reach into his pocket. Claim you fear cheating by the money-lender which will be an automatic disqualification, and thus you will pull out both stones first.

or

6. Claim that the money lender must really love her in order to take such a chance, so as a sign of her reward to him, say she will only stay with her father if the two stones are the same (of course, while simultaneously picking the two stones).