But seriously, folks, there's some good math and geometry here. I like it.
Fractional aiming and required accuracy
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Ok. You stand in the camp with those who think fractional aiming is a limited or insufficient method when it comes to learning how to aim. That's fine. You're not alone.
But I happen to think your entire camp is a bit in the dark when it comes to understanding how aiming skills are developed. For so many years now, too many instructors have stubbornly stuck with primarily teaching ghostball, relying on HAMB/rote to eventually develop the skills needed for aiming.
I understand why teaching ghostball is so popular. It's easy to explain. Unfortunately, it doesn't supply the shooter with any solid aiming reference, so progress relies on guessing, until they finally begin to start seeing enough positive results to take advantage of the rote process. That's a long road to travel, hence the old term, "hamb".
When it comes to developing a good eye for pocketing balls, using a solid visual aiming reference can be much more efficient and effective than using an imaginary reference. In other words, using the ob itself as an aiming reference is better than using an imaginary ghostball, or guessing/estimating exactly how far away to aim from a nearly impossible-to-see contact point on the fat surface of the ball.
I'm not saying ghostball and contact points are useless, or that those methods don't work, or that they shouldn't be used on occasion. But I am saying there is a quicker (more efficient and effective) method of developing aiming skills, and its rooted in fractional aiming.
Regardless of what aiming method anyone chooses to begin with, eventually the mind utilizes all visual data available to achieve accurate and consistent aiming results. The more solid visual data one incorporates in the beginning of this journey, the quicker they'll reach a proficient level of accuracy and consistency.
Oikawa
Well-known member
My opinion about HAMB vs. systems is that if the game was played without sidespin, swerve, throw, table differences etc. and it was as simple as only looking at the cut angle with no extra variables like a 2D video game, aiming systems would be much more viable than HAMB, and provide a higher potential ceiling for most players. But given the multivariable nature of aiming, systems mostly work as a launching pad for basic center ball shots.
HAMB, however you do/call it exactly, with the important factor being that eventually you let your intuition take over and aim for you, will work no matter how many variables there are at play. Sure, it develops slower for more complex shots (e.g. side/elevation at the same time), but with it, you slowly but surely get a touch for all types of shots, that you'd never master with a system. With subconscious aiming, you spend less effort computing the aiming, and you build trust in your subconscious, which will make it easier to get into the flow state in general.
I'm all for aiming systems when it comes to beginners getting a jump start, or intermediate/advanced players who aren't at the level of experience yet of having that perfect trust in their self having a fallback method for when their intuition fails, or for special shot types (e.g. banks/kicks, for those the best recipe is a combination of conscious and subconscious calculations), but if a player believes that aiming systems are a valid end-goal for reaching their full potential over the years, they are most likely wrong, and will hinder their progress if they don't eventually let go and give a chance to their subconscious who is ridiculously much faster at processing complex data than your conscious brain, no matter what method you use.
I believe 99%+ of pro players aim instinctively. Even if they have different routines and approaches, e.g. you might pick a point on the OB or use overlaps or parallel lines or whatever, but no matter how you frame the process, and even if you have some sort of conscious heuristics going on e.g fractional aiming as a starting point, if there is a moment at the end, where the intuition can make final, precise adjustment for the alignment, you are using your intuition instead of a system to make the final aim.
HAMB, however you do/call it exactly, with the important factor being that eventually you let your intuition take over and aim for you, will work no matter how many variables there are at play. Sure, it develops slower for more complex shots (e.g. side/elevation at the same time), but with it, you slowly but surely get a touch for all types of shots, that you'd never master with a system. With subconscious aiming, you spend less effort computing the aiming, and you build trust in your subconscious, which will make it easier to get into the flow state in general.
I'm all for aiming systems when it comes to beginners getting a jump start, or intermediate/advanced players who aren't at the level of experience yet of having that perfect trust in their self having a fallback method for when their intuition fails, or for special shot types (e.g. banks/kicks, for those the best recipe is a combination of conscious and subconscious calculations), but if a player believes that aiming systems are a valid end-goal for reaching their full potential over the years, they are most likely wrong, and will hinder their progress if they don't eventually let go and give a chance to their subconscious who is ridiculously much faster at processing complex data than your conscious brain, no matter what method you use.
I believe 99%+ of pro players aim instinctively. Even if they have different routines and approaches, e.g. you might pick a point on the OB or use overlaps or parallel lines or whatever, but no matter how you frame the process, and even if you have some sort of conscious heuristics going on e.g fractional aiming as a starting point, if there is a moment at the end, where the intuition can make final, precise adjustment for the alignment, you are using your intuition instead of a system to make the final aim.
I agree, but I wouldn’t say “instead of a system” - the system combined with intuition make the final aim.
pj
chgo
Wow.........With all due respect and this is just one guys worthless opinion.......That it not a good look for you..........Hack instructors yes.....but.....I can't think of any top professional instructors that would make such a comment about methods that don't fit their personal methods.
Dr. Cue (Tom Rossman) has the same mentality when it comes to teaching aiming. He is 100% ghostball and refuses to consider the value or benefit of using any other method.
I had just published Poolology, and I was going to give him a copy of the book to read so I could pick his brain afterwards, get his professional opinion on the material. He had zero interest in it.
Nevertheless, I purchased a booklet and a signed cb from him out of respect/support. The booklet was laced with biblical passages, more of a religious guide than pool instruction, so I gave it to someone who I thought might appreciate bible lessons. I kept the cb.
I have always liked and respected Tom Rossman, still do. He is a great guy, very entertaining, but I learned something new about him that day: It's either his way or no way at all.
Try play some carom games or Russian Pyramid or any similar game with contact point/ghost ball. Just not work. Fractional gives more than just aiming. That why I think it is superior to other methods. But there is many way to skin the cat. If we talk just pocketing balls.
There is more than that. If you can combine your aiming so it helps with cueball control too. There half ball and quarter ball hits are important concepts to accelerate learning.
There is more than that. If you can combine your aiming so it helps with cueball control too. There half ball and quarter ball hits are important concepts to accelerate learning.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I like to shoot pool like I do traditional archery. Look at the target and hit it. 
In all seriousness though, aiming systems are not one size fits all. I can make shots, even tough ones that leave my opponents stunned. If I try playing fractions, overlaps, etc. in my head it's a sure fire way to miss. Mah head don't work dat way. This game can be as easy or as tough as you make it. Get your fundamentals down, shoot the ball and watch what happens. It's not HAMB if you actually observe what happens.
You literally just have to look at it and shoot it. It's good to know tangents, how a rolling cb behaves and the like but this isn't rocket surgery. I'll shoot the wings off a gnat and guess what, I shot what looked right. No secret systems. I started with ghost ball, quickly abandoned it, tried everything from fractions to CTE and guess what? They are all references. You don't need training wheels to learn to ride a bike, and you sure don't need them once you can ride.
Not to mention you have to adapt anyway, dirty balls, humidity etc. You're already adapting so why do you need this stuff? It's angles and understanding how balls react. I know the stuff, studied all sorts of systems, but where the rubber meets the road ALL systems break down eventually.
Speed and spin is one things systems fail to mention. You can do a lot with these little spheres if you know how to manipulate them. You also gotta know when to let them behave naturally.
Systems are not worth arguing over. They all work to a degree and they all break down at a point in the real world. You must adjust, some call if "feel."
A shortcut to HAMB: Visualize it, shoot it, stay down and watch what happens. Adjust until reality matches your visualization. You either end up a pool player or in the psych ward.
In all seriousness though, aiming systems are not one size fits all. I can make shots, even tough ones that leave my opponents stunned. If I try playing fractions, overlaps, etc. in my head it's a sure fire way to miss. Mah head don't work dat way. This game can be as easy or as tough as you make it. Get your fundamentals down, shoot the ball and watch what happens. It's not HAMB if you actually observe what happens.
You literally just have to look at it and shoot it. It's good to know tangents, how a rolling cb behaves and the like but this isn't rocket surgery. I'll shoot the wings off a gnat and guess what, I shot what looked right. No secret systems. I started with ghost ball, quickly abandoned it, tried everything from fractions to CTE and guess what? They are all references. You don't need training wheels to learn to ride a bike, and you sure don't need them once you can ride.
Not to mention you have to adapt anyway, dirty balls, humidity etc. You're already adapting so why do you need this stuff? It's angles and understanding how balls react. I know the stuff, studied all sorts of systems, but where the rubber meets the road ALL systems break down eventually.
Speed and spin is one things systems fail to mention. You can do a lot with these little spheres if you know how to manipulate them. You also gotta know when to let them behave naturally.
Systems are not worth arguing over. They all work to a degree and they all break down at a point in the real world. You must adjust, some call if "feel."
A shortcut to HAMB: Visualize it, shoot it, stay down and watch what happens. Adjust until reality matches your visualization. You either end up a pool player or in the psych ward.
One can get more accurate cueball direction and speed control. Example: hair thinner than half ball and cueball and object ball travel EXACTLY same distance with rolling ball.
1) I was (in part) joking, and my next post was "But seriously, folks, there's some good math and geometry here. I like it." I was letting off steam because of the dense information that opened this thread.
2) My opinion is not worthless. Nor am I a hack.
3) Oh, I WOULD MAKE COMMENTS. There are some people out there, teachers and pros, whom you might call "top professional instructors" in your post, who charge a lot of money for garbage. I don't have to respect every aim system or every person who is a "top teacher" who is actually ripping people off!
Last edited:
1) My next subsequent post was "But seriously, folks, there's some good math and geometry here. I like it."
2) I appreciate and tolerate others' viewpoints, ones who do not tend to not spend long at AZB as members.
3) I teach multiple aim systems to others (ghostball has quite limited uses IMHO) and I recommend Poolology to others. However, there's a lot of dense info on this thread, so I made a joke.
4) Tom Rossman is a friend, but a busy person (maybe a bit ADHD, too). So he likely wasn't meaning to show you disrespect when he didn't look more carefully at Poolology. If you want me to, I can talk to him about it.
Last edited:
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Well maybe both in some cases.
I guess it just depends on how much you want to muscle the CB around. I know it can be frustrating if you try to fight physics too much!
N
We're good. And no need to talk to Tom. He wasn't disrespectful at all, not in the slightest. He just had no interest in talking about anything other than ghostball when I mentioned aiming.
His main point was that the ghostball is always 1.125" away from the ob. My point was how that 1.125" only looks like 1.125" if you're aiming a 90° cut. With all other cut angles, that little distance never looks like 1.125", due to the shooter's perspective while looking at the cb-ob relationship. He simply gave his great, friendly smile and said something like, "The ghostball is always this far away from the object ball...", and showed the approximate 1.125" distance using his thumb and forefinger.
Like I said, he's a good guy, and he's a lot of fun to be around, but I felt he was a bit stubborn and dated on his teaching method when it comes to aiming. And that's fine also. He surely isn't the only one out there adamantly preaching ghostball, ghostball, ghostball! Lol.
I believe there's a very good reason the Poolology book is still selling very well after 5 years on the market. It's the same reason the book continually remains among the top-ranked pool/billiards books on Amazon. It certainly isn't because I'm a great writer and readers can't seem to get enough of my words! Lol.
The reason the book is doing well is because the method works and many players see quick improvement when it comes to pocketing balls. That's really all that matters - positive results in a shorter time period than most other aiming methods require.
Sorry if this comes off as a Poolology advertisement, but it is what it is, even if it isn't the wonderous magic of ghostball.
We're good. And no need to talk to Tom. He wasn't disrespectful at all, not in the slightest. He just had no interest in talking about anything other than ghostball when I mentioned aiming.
His main point was that the ghostball is always 1.125" away from the ob. My point was how that 1.125" only looks like 1.125" if you're aiming a 90° cut. With all other cut angles, that little distance never looks like 1.125", due to the shooter's perspective while looking at the cb-ob relationship. He simply gave his great, friendly smile and said something like, "The ghostball is always this far away from the object ball...", and showed the approximate 1.125" distance using his thumb and forefinger.
Like I said, he's a good guy, and he's a lot of fun to be around, but I felt he was a bit stubborn and dated on his teaching method when it comes to aiming. And that's fine also. He surely isn't the only one out there adamantly preaching ghostball, ghostball, ghostball! Lol.
I believe there's a very good reason the Poolology book is still selling very well after 5 years on the market. It's the same reason the book continually remains among the top-ranked pool/billiards books on Amazon. It certainly isn't because I'm a great writer and readers can't seem to get enough of my words! Lol.
The reason the book is doing well is because the method works and many players see quick improvement when it comes to pocketing balls. That's really all that matters - positive results in a shorter time period than most other aiming methods require.
Sorry if this comes off as a Poolology advertisement, but it is what it is, even if it isn't the wonderous magic of ghostball.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
If I can make pretty much any shot from the thinnest cut that requires outside to throw it in to a straight shot, will Poolology do anything for me? I have Playing to Win and really like it but I'm not sure a book on aiming will be worthwhile when I can already aim about anything on the table. Any thoughts?I believe there's a very good reason the Poolology book is still selling very well after 5 years on the market. It's the same reason the book continually remains among the top-ranked pool/billiards books on Amazon. It certainly isn't because I'm a great writer and readers can't seem to get enough of my words! Lol.
The reason the book is doing well is because the method works and many players see quick improvement when it comes to pocketing balls. That's really all that matters - positive results in a shorter time period than most other aiming methods require.
Sorry if this comes off as a Poolology advertisement, but it is what it is, even if it isn't the wonderous magic of ghostball.
Last edited:
You're right, Poolology is not for you. It's really geared toward helping players reach your level of pocketing skills.
Thanks for getting "Playing to Win"! I think it's a much better book than Poolology, especially for players that already have a good eye and stroke for pocketing balls.
Yes, he aims by instinct. He warms up by canning a dozen wing shots!N
We're good. And no need to talk to Tom. He wasn't disrespectful at all, not in the slightest. He just had no interest in talking about anything other than ghostball when I mentioned aiming.
His main point was that the ghostball is always 1.125" away from the ob. My point was how that 1.125" only looks like 1.125" if you're aiming a 90° cut. With all other cut angles, that little distance never looks like 1.125", due to the shooter's perspective while looking at the cb-ob relationship. He simply gave his great, friendly smile and said something like, "The ghostball is always this far away from the object ball...", and showed the approximate 1.125" distance using his thumb and forefinger.
Like I said, he's a good guy, and he's a lot of fun to be around, but I felt he was a bit stubborn and dated on his teaching method when it comes to aiming. And that's fine also. He surely isn't the only one out there adamantly preaching ghostball, ghostball, ghostball! Lol.
I believe there's a very good reason the Poolology book is still selling very well after 5 years on the market. It's the same reason the book continually remains among the top-ranked pool/billiards books on Amazon. It certainly isn't because I'm a great writer and readers can't seem to get enough of my words! Lol.
The reason the book is doing well is because the method works and many players see quick improvement when it comes to pocketing balls. That's really all that matters - positive results in a shorter time period than most other aiming methods require.
Sorry if this comes off as a Poolology advertisement, but it is what it is, even if it isn't the wonderous magic of ghostball.
I think ghost ball has limited uses, for example, the kind of kicks and caroms in Ray Martin's book.
It's okay to tell people your book is highly rated and works--it's the toxic people at AZ who obscure truth.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
It costs nothing to be nice. Why do you choose to be salty?