fractional aiming with throw?

[skunkfunk9]

I am relatively new to playing somewhat serious pool. I have been playing for a while but recently, within the last year have really tried to step up my game. I was reading about fractional aiming where i think there were seven ball hits if i'm not mistaken (which i probably am). I was wondering if it would be possible to make every shot on the table using only 7 object ball hits and using cueball spin for the rest. It seems like this would be much easier than trying to hit a precise point on the object ball every single shot. After all, it's much easier to hit 7 spots consistently and also easier to hit the cue ball with the stick in a certain place. Is this a bad way to aim and make shots? I guess it would make positional play more difficult, because your essentially throwing every shot into a pocket with where you hit the cueball and not using where you hit the cueball to play for the next shot. Do experts do both at the same time? Is this method completely random and nonsensical? It seems like it would simplify things quite a bit. Any thoughts?

 

[Neil]

I am relatively new to playing somewhat serious pool. I have been playing for a while but recently, within the last year have really tried to step up my game. I was reading about fractional aiming where i think there were seven ball hits if i'm not mistaken (which i probably am). I was wondering if it would be possible to make every shot on the table using only 7 object ball hits and using cueball spin for the rest. It seems like this would be much easier than trying to hit a precise point on the object ball every single shot. After all, it's much easier to hit 7 spots consistently and also easier to hit the cue ball with the stick in a certain place. Is this a bad way to aim and make shots? I guess it would make positional play more difficult, because your essentially throwing every shot into a pocket with where you hit the cueball and not using where you hit the cueball to play for the next shot. Do experts do both at the same time? Is this method completely random and nonsensical? It seems like it would simplify things quite a bit. Any thoughts?

Nice thinking outside the box, but no, it wouldn't actually be easier. The problem you omitted is deflection and swerve. Any time you hit off center on the cb, it deflects or squirts, and then, depending on speed, curves back towards the line. You have to adjust for all that, so no, it wouldn't be easier to do it that way.