Just wondering.
Do 3-cushion players have aiming systems ?
- Thread starter JoeyInCali
- Start date
I played a little 3c wasnt real good though.How I aimed was thick and thin on the ball trying to judge where I wanted the ball to hit the rail for desired path to score.
Just starting to try 3c...
I have trouble getting to the first rail accurately. Coming off the first ball gives me trouble. The cb going through the first ball to the rail gives me fits.
Any aiming hints out there for aiming these 'off' or 'through' cue ball paths?
thanks
I have trouble getting to the first rail accurately. Coming off the first ball gives me trouble. The cb going through the first ball to the rail gives me fits.
Any aiming hints out there for aiming these 'off' or 'through' cue ball paths?
thanks
More than NASA. But I think some players (e.g., Sang Lee?) just go on "feel."
3C players seem to have huge steaming piles of systems for everything. The late Walt Harris put out the multi-volume "Atlas" series. But as has been alluded, the greats frequently play mostly by feel. A fun passage from "McGoorty."
#####
“In Hoppe’s book on how to play billiards is a long section on the diamond system, charts showing how to count the spots on the rails and figure out where to aim by using arithmetic. Now that is a joke, because he was not a system player. I went out to Navy Pier one morning during the 1950 tournament to practice and there was Hoppe all alone in the hall. He had the book open and was shooting shots from the diagrams... trying out the system. He looked up at me and said, “You know, Dan, it works. But you need a perfect stroke.’
Those charts were put in the book by Bryon Schoeman and a lot of them are haywire. Sometimes one of my students will show me the book and say, ‘Look at this McGoorty. Hoppe says you can hit the rail here and end up there.’
‘My boy,’ I say, ‘it can’t be done. Those charts are just pretty pictures.’
Not only did Hoppe not use the diamond system, he had nothing to do with developing it. That was done by Copulus, Layton, and Clarence Jackson.
Guys like Hoppe, Cochran, and Schaefer, they knew the table so well, all the angles, all the returns, they didn’t need to use any system. They could get four out of two by elevating the cue alittle and putting a touch of masse on the ball. The system? What system? f*ck the system.’”
#####
Lou Figueroa
At least the guys, who *are not using a system* have their own reference shots, where they exactly know what happen. And thru the earned expirience by practicing enough, they were/are able to vary with those well known references.
There is a 3 cushion guy where I play that swears by the diamond system. However, he is also the first to state that it is more for reference that anything.
Adjustments still have to be made to adjust for spin and speed. The top players in this area all have one thing in common, table time. They are at the table hitting shot after shot trying different things.
There is a tangent line drill I do that can help see where the CB is gonna hit a rail.
Setup a simple cut shot such that the OB is not far from the pocket and the CB is such that after the cut shot it will hit a rail. Place another OB at the spot on the rail where you think the CB will hit after contact with the OB was for the cut shot. Then do the shot and see how close you get.
Also, you can place the OB on the rail first, then set up the CB on the table where you think it needs to be to hit the OB you placed on the rail.
You can expand this to placing a OB on the second rail to see how accurate you are at hitting where you want when you need to send the CB 2 rails for position.
Good little drill.
Adjustments still have to be made to adjust for spin and speed. The top players in this area all have one thing in common, table time. They are at the table hitting shot after shot trying different things.
There is a tangent line drill I do that can help see where the CB is gonna hit a rail.
Setup a simple cut shot such that the OB is not far from the pocket and the CB is such that after the cut shot it will hit a rail. Place another OB at the spot on the rail where you think the CB will hit after contact with the OB was for the cut shot. Then do the shot and see how close you get.
Also, you can place the OB on the rail first, then set up the CB on the table where you think it needs to be to hit the OB you placed on the rail.
You can expand this to placing a OB on the second rail to see how accurate you are at hitting where you want when you need to send the CB 2 rails for position.
Good little drill.
I have not played 3 cushion seriously in a long time, just a few games here and there. I used to average .7 when I played, so fairly respectable.
I learned and used dozens of systems, everything from the standard 3-rail (corner 5) system to cross table, backup, reverse, dead ball, etc. systems. Even a funky Japanese ball system that was in one of Walt's books that I use in pool as well for safety play. Although I'm sure someone somewhere would say it doesn't or can't work...
That being said, they are all references. Table conditions, speed, positional considerations, etc. are all factors and are adjusted for using experience. However, I'd much rather KNOW where the theoretical aim point is at least as opposed to guessing over and over, the game is hard enough. There are a few top players - Sang Lee being the most famous one I can think of - that purported to not use any systems at all. That's very possible, with his talent and time spent at the table. Most of the players though start out with certain systems or guidelines at least, and many of the players are very mechanical and only deviate from the systems when needed.
As far as pure aiming, I think that's more of a visualization of the tangent line coming off of the object ball, so it's a little different than pool. Plus you can achieve the same angles or tracks by hitting the ball thinner with draw or fuller with follow, using more/less spin, etc. as necessary to play position or avoid kisses, so it becomes more of an art form than the precision required in pool. Part of why I loved playing.
Will be interesting if I can start playing again - talks of getting a table here in Jax - to see how many shots come up where I can make use of CTE type concepts to send the object ball to a corner, or achieve a thin hit, etc., especially since it's so ingrained in my pool game.
Scott
I learned and used dozens of systems, everything from the standard 3-rail (corner 5) system to cross table, backup, reverse, dead ball, etc. systems. Even a funky Japanese ball system that was in one of Walt's books that I use in pool as well for safety play. Although I'm sure someone somewhere would say it doesn't or can't work...
That being said, they are all references. Table conditions, speed, positional considerations, etc. are all factors and are adjusted for using experience. However, I'd much rather KNOW where the theoretical aim point is at least as opposed to guessing over and over, the game is hard enough. There are a few top players - Sang Lee being the most famous one I can think of - that purported to not use any systems at all. That's very possible, with his talent and time spent at the table. Most of the players though start out with certain systems or guidelines at least, and many of the players are very mechanical and only deviate from the systems when needed.
As far as pure aiming, I think that's more of a visualization of the tangent line coming off of the object ball, so it's a little different than pool. Plus you can achieve the same angles or tracks by hitting the ball thinner with draw or fuller with follow, using more/less spin, etc. as necessary to play position or avoid kisses, so it becomes more of an art form than the precision required in pool. Part of why I loved playing.
Will be interesting if I can start playing again - talks of getting a table here in Jax - to see how many shots come up where I can make use of CTE type concepts to send the object ball to a corner, or achieve a thin hit, etc., especially since it's so ingrained in my pool game.
Scott
There are some good books out there, just take them with a grain of salt because of ghost writers to the pros as has been mentioned on this thread.
You won't need certain systems but you want to take into account what english can (specifically) do to alter ball paths, for example, there are some nice writeups here regarding english for a pool table:
Double Pro System
Single Kick System
The top 3C players all seem to aim strictly by feel. In other words, they use HAMB ("Hit A Million Balls" to develop an instinctive feel for how to aim all sorts of shots and how to compensate for all effects).
However, there are many systems that can help 3C players that have not hit a million balls yet. Many are described, illustrated, and demonstrated here:
The most important and most widely known and used for 3C are:
Corner 5 System for aiming two-, three-, and four-rail kicks off a long rail
Plus System for aiming two-rail kicks off a short rail
Plus System for aiming two-rail kicks off a short rail
Regards,
Dave
Another way to do this is by placing coins on the rails where you think the CB will hit. Place the coins right at the nose so they'll jump a little when you hit them. Using multiple coins on multiple rails you can tell if the CB hits all the rails where you expect.
pj
chgo
OK, so there are many systems for 3-cushion to know what tracks to be used or where they want the cue ball to go after striking the object ball, but I don't think that is what was asked. I think the OP wanted to know if 3-cushion players use "aiming" systems (if I'm wrong, never mind 
).
Since there are so many shots that are played well away from the center of the cue ball, you do have to develop a feel for where the cue ball will hit using center ball to extreme english. Most players I have seen aim for a spot on the object ball that will allow the cue ball to travel to its designated track. To do that, many player will use the tip of the cue stick to aim to that spot, some will use the ghost ball and some will use the ghost ball behind the object ball to get a clear view of the track they would like the cue ball to travel. But much of it is knowledge and technique of your own stroke and how different speeds, spins and distances will affect where you hit the object ball.
I have never seen any 3-cushion player use a pivot system (if that's your real question). The closest I have seen is Paul Melnichek(sp?) use back hand english because he was out of stroke and he learned it from a pool player. He would line up to hit the aim point of the object ball using center ball, and pivot his back hand to get the spin he wanted. He only used it when he wasn't in stroke and "feeling" it, but isn't that what systems are for; something to fall back on when you're not feeling it at the table?
I hope this helps answer the OP's original question. Of course this is only based on my experience and I cannot speak for the whole, but I have played with, and known many top palyers.
Dave
). Since there are so many shots that are played well away from the center of the cue ball, you do have to develop a feel for where the cue ball will hit using center ball to extreme english. Most players I have seen aim for a spot on the object ball that will allow the cue ball to travel to its designated track. To do that, many player will use the tip of the cue stick to aim to that spot, some will use the ghost ball and some will use the ghost ball behind the object ball to get a clear view of the track they would like the cue ball to travel. But much of it is knowledge and technique of your own stroke and how different speeds, spins and distances will affect where you hit the object ball.
I have never seen any 3-cushion player use a pivot system (if that's your real question). The closest I have seen is Paul Melnichek(sp?) use back hand english because he was out of stroke and he learned it from a pool player. He would line up to hit the aim point of the object ball using center ball, and pivot his back hand to get the spin he wanted. He only used it when he wasn't in stroke and "feeling" it, but isn't that what systems are for; something to fall back on when you're not feeling it at the table?
I hope this helps answer the OP's original question. Of course this is only based on my experience and I cannot speak for the whole, but I have played with, and known many top palyers.
Dave
Apparently my posts are invisible lately, just happened in another thread where I answered a question, followed by others saying pretty much the same thing and getting great feedback. I'm even trying to keep the posts shorter...
My response from above:
As far as pure aiming, I think that's more of a visualization of the tangent line coming off of the object ball, so it's a little different than pool. Plus you can achieve the same angles or tracks by hitting the ball thinner with draw or fuller with follow, using more/less spin, etc. as necessary to play position or avoid kisses, so it becomes more of an art form than the precision required in pool. Part of why I loved playing.
While I might use some systems to help aim thin hits, or could use one if I were driving the ball into a corner, in general I think I would rely on my visualization of the overlap of the ball and the resulting tangent line and path based on speed, english, etc.
Scott
My response from above:
As far as pure aiming, I think that's more of a visualization of the tangent line coming off of the object ball, so it's a little different than pool. Plus you can achieve the same angles or tracks by hitting the ball thinner with draw or fuller with follow, using more/less spin, etc. as necessary to play position or avoid kisses, so it becomes more of an art form than the precision required in pool. Part of why I loved playing.
While I might use some systems to help aim thin hits, or could use one if I were driving the ball into a corner, in general I think I would rely on my visualization of the overlap of the ball and the resulting tangent line and path based on speed, english, etc.
Scott
Apparently my posts are invisible lately, just happened in another thread where I answered a question, followed by others saying pretty much the same thing and getting great feedback. I'm even trying to keep the posts shorter...
My response from above:
As far as pure aiming, I think that's more of a visualization of the tangent line coming off of the object ball, so it's a little different than pool. Plus you can achieve the same angles or tracks by hitting the ball thinner with draw or fuller with follow, using more/less spin, etc. as necessary to play position or avoid kisses, so it becomes more of an art form than the precision required in pool. Part of why I loved playing.
While I might use some systems to help aim thin hits, or could use one if I were driving the ball into a corner, in general I think I would rely on my visualization of the overlap of the ball and the resulting tangent line and path based on speed, english, etc.
Scott
Great post!:thumbup: