Aiming

How do you aim?

  • Fractional aiming system (aka: Hal Houle)

    Votes: 17 14.3%

  • I just shoot the ball in the hole.

    Votes: 12 10.1%

  • Point to point.

    Votes: 13 10.9%

  • By feel.

    Votes: 40 33.6%

  • Ghost Ball

    Votes: 26 21.8%

  • I aim at the base of the object ball.

    Votes: 7 5.9%

  • I aim at the contact point on the object ball.

    Votes: 38 31.9%

  • OTHER: PLEASE DEFINE.

    Votes: 9 7.6%

  • I don't know how I aim.

    Votes: 8 6.7%
  • Total voters
    119
  • Poll closed .
JoeyA

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
It has been a while since I started the original thread on how AZers aim:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=16955&highlight=invisible

As new members are added everyday, I thought some people might benefit from knowing about the original thread. It got a lot of hits and responses and was interesting to say the least.

For this thread I was wondering if you have changed the way you aim since the original thread started.

And since Smorgassbored always accuses me of starting threads and leaving them as orphans, I thought I would make my comments upfront and add a few as Smorg intimidates me into responding. ;)

It seems that every few months I have a new Epiphany about something. Lately I believe all these new Epiphanies are simply that I figure out what I have been doing wrong, at least for a moment or two. :o

I experiment with different ways to aim for particular shots from time to time but for the most part, I aim by feel, aiming the edge/contact point of the cue ball to hit the appropriate contact point of the object ball. (By appropriate I mean that I take into consideration the different variables that might affect the shot (cue ball spin, humidity, cleanliness of balls/table etc, position of the object ball, shape needed etc.) Often times when I am in dead stroke I simply line up the shot and shoot the ball into the hole without much conscious thinking or conscious aiming.

Lately I have experimented with aiming the center of the cue ball to a spot on the table where I wish for the cue ball to make contact with the object ball. It has mixed results more positive than negative. Another thing that I have found very beneficial is to spend more time (but not too much time) looking at the object ball, rather than shifting my eyes back and forth from the object ball to the cue ball in rapid fashion. One of the AZers posted a video with Alan Alda? doing some scientific research using the latest equipment to help increase putting, shooting etc. Sorry I forgot THE AZer's screen name but the video was awesome. Someone can post the link.

Anyway, some of the newer members might benefit from the old thread and this new one as well. Times change and people often change the way they do things.

Have you changed the way you aim? How do you aim?

JoeyA
 
I Can't Possible Eat Another Triple Deck Ham Sammich

I've gotten so old and feeble that I now aim with two hands instead of one.
Doug
( I wait with bait on my breath for the serious answers and I'd like to thank you in advance for re-starting this thread and promising to visit it once in awhile.... imo :)


.
 
Kind of misleading poll IMO.

Most of the selections are actually aiming "tools" that are used to gain "feel" for making the shot.

Ultimatley "feel" will win out because of that.


BTW: The "I just shoot the balls in the hole" falls under "feel" IMO.

If the selection were available on the Poll I would have chosen "all of the above" since some shots I will use the bottom of the ball, for others the HH methods, point point...or in my case (center to center)

depends on the shot...but the tools I use are only to gain a feel for making the shot.... :)
 
BRKNRUN said:
Kind of misleading poll IMO.

Most of the selections are actually aiming "tools" that are used to gain "feel" for making the shot.

Ultimatley "feel" will win out because of that.


BTW: The "I just shoot the balls in the hole" falls under "feel" IMO.

If the selection were available on the Poll I would have chosen "all of the above" since some shots I will use the bottom of the ball, for others the HH methods, point point...or in my case (center to center)

depends on the shot...but the tools I use are only to gain a feel for making the shot.... :)
Click to expand...

Hi Ken. I dislike posts that suggest that you THINK your are doing X but you actually are not. I genuinely don't what these comments to come off that way. But I think that what some might consider "feel" as opposed to a specifically planned and executed plan, is really a function of the fact that the brain can calculate repetitive tasks with blinding speed.

In another thread, I presented an analogy of how we make decisions to make a turn in our cars, or to decide whehter to proceed through a yellow traffic light. There are extremely complex calculations of time, speed and muscle force.

I think we all would state that we accomplish such maneuvers by "feel" when, in fact, the brain is actually performing sophisticated calculations extremely rapidly.

IMHO, where "true feel" comes into play is in the process of making necessary adjustments from a systematic aiming technique to account for all the cueing variables and the offsetting of collision-induced throw.

I know of no "system" that depicts, for example, exactly how much outside english is required to exactly offset CIT without imposing swerve that would make that adjustment false...etc.

The ability to make such adjustments instinctively (since there is no system) is what separates the greats from the also-rans.

But to respond directly to the question in this thread...I use a "combo" approach...i.e. two methods that confirm each other.

One method is taught by Jimmy Reid that he calls something like "equal opposites" where to determine the CP on the ob and then draw a mental line straight up from that ooint to the perimeter of the ob. That will give you a distance from top dead center of the ob. (sometimes referred to as positions on a clock face) and then aim the "equal opposite" of that position on the cb to the clock face position on the ob.

The problems with that system are two-fold.

1. Using any portion of the ob except top dead center involves attempting to aim a gun that has a sight that is offset from the center of the barrel and therefore, involves a "paralax view" that some are better at adjusting to than others.

2. Except for shots where the ob is fairly close to the pocket, the geometrically derived CP is not accurate due to CIT and as noted above, correctly adjusting for CIT involves almost infinite variables of english and speed.

The second system I use fairly closely resembles the S.A.M system taught by the "SPF family" of instructors which, at its heart, involves using the cue tip to point at specific spots on the ob. IMHO, there is simply no aiming method that is as intuitive and precise as aiming the cue tip just like a rifle would be aimed. The trick, of course, is where...exactly...to point the tip.

The method I use has certain shots where there are exceptions...just as are pointed out in S.A.M but it works for a huge percentage of shots.

So, I use my cue-tip aiming method and confirm it with the "equal opposites" method. It takes just a SECOND to make the confirmation and then I pay exclusive attention to where the tip is to be aimed.

Regards,
Jim
 
I find it difficult to visualize the equal-opposite contact points, whereas the ghost ball is easier for me. But I feel like that lacks precision sometimes, so I'm trying to improve on that.
 
av84fun said:
Hi Ken. I dislike posts that suggest that you THINK your are doing X but you actually are not. I genuinely don't what these comments to come off that way. But I think that what some might consider "feel" as opposed to a specifically planned and executed plan, is really a function of the fact that the brain can calculate repetitive tasks with blinding speed.

In another thread, I presented an analogy of how we make decisions to make a turn in our cars, or to decide whehter to proceed through a yellow traffic light. There are extremely complex calculations of time, speed and muscle force.

I think we all would state that we accomplish such maneuvers by "feel" when, in fact, the brain is actually performing sophisticated calculations extremely rapidly.

IMHO, where "true feel" comes into play is in the process of making necessary adjustments from a systematic aiming technique to account for all the cueing variables and the offsetting of collision-induced throw.

I know of no "system" that depicts, for example, exactly how much outside english is required to exactly offset CIT without imposing swerve that would make that adjustment false...etc.

The ability to make such adjustments instinctively (since there is no system) is what separates the greats from the also-rans.

But to respond directly to the question in this thread...I use a "combo" approach...i.e. two methods that confirm each other.

One method is taught by Jimmy Reid that he calls something like "equal opposites" where to determine the CP on the ob and then draw a mental line straight up from that ooint to the perimeter of the ob. That will give you a distance from top dead center of the ob. (sometimes referred to as positions on a clock face) and then aim the "equal opposite" of that position on the cb to the clock face position on the ob.

The problems with that system are two-fold.

1. Using any portion of the ob except top dead center involves attempting to aim a gun that has a sight that is offset from the center of the barrel and therefore, involves a "paralax view" that some are better at adjusting to than others.

2. Except for shots where the ob is fairly close to the pocket, the geometrically derived CP is not accurate due to CIT and as noted above, correctly adjusting for CIT involves almost infinite variables of english and speed.

The second system I use fairly closely resembles the S.A.M system taught by the "SPF family" of instructors which, at its heart, involves using the cue tip to point at specific spots on the ob. IMHO, there is simply no aiming method that is as intuitive and precise as aiming the cue tip just like a rifle would be aimed. The trick, of course, is where...exactly...to point the tip.

The method I use has certain shots where there are exceptions...just as are pointed out in S.A.M but it works for a huge percentage of shots.

So, I use my cue-tip aiming method and confirm it with the "equal opposites" method. It takes just a SECOND to make the confirmation and then I pay exclusive attention to where the tip is to be aimed.

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...


Unfortunatlye there will always be the things you "think" you are doing but are actually doing something else. The exmple in pool that comes to mind is the HH (aka: Greenleaf) system. Your Aim point does not equal the contact point in most (if any) of his systems. If you aim Center CB to the Edge of the OB your contact points are not the Edge of the OB to the Center of the CB.....(The uneducated may mis-understand this concept...if so, the system won't work unless they blindly trust what is happening.

I have a hard time with "blind trust" and typically have to learn why something works the way it does. But there are those that actually think the contact points are Center CB to the Edge of the OB.


My personal opinion is that every shot we take is derived from some sort of system....(some just don't realize it, or are un-willing to admit it)

The "feel" is that final translation of those systems.

Trial and Error is a system (of sort)


I personally use the Center to Center system converted to a HH aim point. for a majority of shots.....However, I have now done if for so long I rarely think about it unless I find myself down on a shot that just does not "feel" right.....:D

Problem is....If I take any length of time off of pool (like I have done lately), my "feel" goes right out the window...IF I don't utilize the system for a short time to get my feel back in line, I tend to mis some shots very badly....:eek:
 
I selected "Feel". My "aim" is not at the front of the pocket, for a majority of shots I am not aiming at the pocket at all. My aiming point also changes whether I am cuttin a ball right or left, where the cue ball is located on the table, what english I am using and whether or not I am using an open or closed bridge. Sure seems like alot to sort out huh? One thing for sure, I have my mind made up what I am gonna do before I ever get down on a ball. That is why the preshot routine is so important IMHO.
 
I know of no "system" that depicts, for example, exactly how much outside english is required to exactly offset CIT without imposing swerve that would make that adjustment false...etc.
Click to expand...

There actually is a system for putting exactly enough outside spin on the CB to exactly offset collision throw, but as you point out, all pool systems have to be adjusted to the realities of distance and friction.

The "2/5 offset" system also puts just enough running spin on the CB to exactly offset rail friction for kicks, but it's only reliably exact at short range or high speed (to eliminate swerve). At in-between distances and speeds the "feel factor" quickly gets out of hand.

By the way, the same system shows you how high to hit the CB to get instant "natural rolling" follow (2/5 radius above center).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
I aim directly at the point on the OB, and then move very slightly away from the pocket it's going in (for cut shots) to compensate for the actual contact point and motion transfer.
 
I suppose, since you include HH, that S.A.M. should be included also...which is why I polled "other". SAM (although not strictly HH, it has it's origin there...but has been modified by the SPF group to be easier to teach) works in a vast majority of shot situations...predicated, of course, on having an accurate, repeatable stroke. SAM is actually a conglomeration of 4 other 'systems'; those being math (fractional), ghost ball, contact point, and feel. I feel obligated to point out that any aiming method will work with a repeatable stroke...and none will work consistently without one! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Patrick Johnson said:
There actually is a system for putting exactly enough outside spin on the CB to exactly offset collision throw, but as you point out, all pool systems have to be adjusted to the realities of distance and friction.

The "2/5 offset" system also puts just enough running spin on the CB to exactly offset rail friction for kicks, but it's only reliably exact at short range or high speed (to eliminate swerve). At in-between distances and speeds the "feel factor" quickly gets out of hand.

By the way, the same system shows you how high to hit the CB to get instant "natural rolling" follow (2/5 radius above center).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I should have said "no system that makes any sense" because the same english required to offset CIT is also going to squirt and/or curve the CB along some curve adjusted for the speed of the shot and other variables.

Plus, what if you don't want to impart outside english or you want to impart inside english?

Regards,
Jim
 
I find the contact point that sends the OB to the pocket with reference to the center of the OB and I double that distance toward the outside of the OB - this would be my point of aim - simple except for english, throw and squirt.
 
I aim by feel, period. There is no better aiming system in the world than the one that lies between our ears.

It's funny how much time I have spent trying out various aiming systems over the years just to find it works for a short time and then goes away soon there after.

I would say that 98% of the time a miss is caused by a failure or glitch in our stroke or a failure to focus which leads to the same. The other two percent is the pool gods reminding us that we are mortal.

:D

Case in point...there have been a few posts stating that when they are in dead stroke, the person just goes with the flow and just pockets the balls.

I think what happens here is that we get confident and forget to interrupt our brain and allow it to be leading everything as it should be.

Personally, I have found that by focusing on the stroke, I can use about any aiming system in the world and yeild the same positive results in the end.

IMO, spend more time focusing on stroke and staying down and you will find all the aiming systems known to man will work for you.

If you focus more on the aiming system than you do the stroke, I would suggest that you will be forever in search of that perfect aiming system.

;)
 
LAMas said:
I find the contact point that sends the OB to the pocket with reference to the center of the OB and I double that distance toward the outside of the OB - this would be my point of aim - simple except for english, throw and squirt.
Click to expand...

But what do you do when the contact point is more than halfway to the edge of the OB (and the doubled distance is off the edge)? Then you can take the distance from the OB's edge, double it toward the center and aim the CB's inside edge at that target.

1. Double the distance out from the OB center and aim CB center at that.

2. Double the distance in from the OB edge and aim CB edge at that.

The OB contact point is always centered between the edges of the balls and their centers, so if I used this system I might try to use them both simultaneously to cross-check each other. I'd like to be able to simultaneously see each alignment using every "geometrically correct" alignment system (double overlap, ghost CB, parallel lines, etc.), just to have as many cross-checks as possible confirming the shot for me. In fact I do use all of these systems from time to time to cross check tougher shots, even though my primary method is point-to-point by "conscious feel".

pj
chgo

P.S. I think I'm required by law to say something about throw.
 
Last edited:
Me:
There actually is a system for putting exactly enough outside spin on the CB to exactly offset collision throw, but as you point out, all pool systems have to be adjusted to the realities of distance and friction.

The "2/5 offset" system...

av84fun:
I should have said "no system that makes any sense" because the same english required to offset CIT is also going to squirt and/or curve the CB along some curve adjusted for the speed of the shot and other variables.
Click to expand...

Those are the same caveats that come with using sidespin in general - are you saying using sidespin makes no sense?

Plus, what if you don't want to impart outside english or you want to impart inside english?
Click to expand...

Then I guess you'll have to make a choice, huh?

pj
chgo
 
JoeyA, we are cut from the same cloth. I have changed my aming system at least 3 times since last Jan. I also have these Epiphanies that make everything I was doing in the past look as though they were wrong. I am now on a modified Ghost ball which is simply replacing the Ghost with the cue ball and it is working very very well for me NOW. On some other shots I see a needle going through the cb to a spot on the ob. It is all a part of learning I guess.
 
I put that I aim by "feel", because I truly don't really know anymore what I do. I look at the balls, and I look at the pocket, and I look at where I want the cueball to go, then I hit the shot. If I am playing well, everything happens as it is supposed to. I have heard and read all types of "systems", and I am sure that one of them was taught to me almost 50 years ago when I began playing, I just don't remember what it was. Based on hitting thousands of shots over a 50 plus year period, I hit the ball at a spot where I feel, based on past experience, the object ball will go into the pocket (or to the spot) that I need it to go, and the cue ball will travel in the direction I want, at the desired speed, and arrive in the desired position.
Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top