Geometrically correct aiming systems?
- Thread starter Macint0sh
- Start date
drivermaker said:
Been playing only about a year and do use a system. Started playing better though when I learned to see the line of the shot. Earlier on got frustrated and thought my system was useless since I read that pros only used "feel". Glad to know that I'm not the only one who believes in an aiming system.
Cappy and Driver: If you feel compelled to have your method in writing, or in stone, or whatever, that's cool. Do what you like. But, since you are advocating exploring new ideas: Have you read "the inner game of tennis"? I'd assume you have, since you seem to be learned about sports psychology and what-not. Anyway, I'll let my arguement stand on that book. If you've read the book, then you'll know that it can be applied to many endeavors; and you'll also understand where my arguement comes from.
As for how my "system" serves me...well, you're welcome to put your theories to the test against mine anytime, if you've got the quan. I'm not the biggest dog in town, but I've got some game. Ha ha ha. Relax. Just bugging you.
As for how my "system" serves me...well, you're welcome to put your theories to the test against mine anytime, if you've got the quan. I'm not the biggest dog in town, but I've got some game. Ha ha ha. Relax. Just bugging you.
drivermaker
Banned
jer9ball said:
Cha-Ching...Bingo!
There are some who seek to practice with knowledge and awareness on their side. I think that if you choose the path of ignorance and myth, your journey will take much longer. I agree that the former is not a shortcut, but the latter way dooms some players to wander in mediocrity forever.jer9ball said:
drivermaker
Banned
jer9ball said:
Now you're just being evasive and obstinate and you're still full of ca-ca. You have no argument, only a misunderstanding of what is actually taking place and how you're doing it. These aren't theories, they're just names and descriptions to what we actually do and perceive. If it makes you happy to think that you're free-wheeling it, so be it. But, you ain't. BTW, these little internet challenges mean nothing and are stupid, it still doesn't prove the original point, and they'll never take place due to distance or other factors. I've whipped up on a lot better players than you over the years as well as gotten my ass whupped by better players than you, and disgustingly to say, even lost to worse players than you and especially myself.
BobJ: My first statement was a comment in jest. A little trash talk. Thought pool players thrived on that. Whatever.
I've read more than my fair share about pool. Some of the books had good ideas, and some didn't. Many contradicted each other. But not one improved my game. The only thing that improves my game, is hours at the table. My opinion. I think people obsess over verbalized techniques far too much.
I've read more than my fair share about pool. Some of the books had good ideas, and some didn't. Many contradicted each other. But not one improved my game. The only thing that improves my game, is hours at the table. My opinion. I think people obsess over verbalized techniques far too much.
Driver: You obviously have no sense of humour. The fact that I'm reading messages over the net, has not escaped my attention. The challenge was a JOKE. An attempt to LIGHTEN UP.
You still haven't answered my question: Have you read "Inner Game of Tennis", or not?
You still haven't answered my question: Have you read "Inner Game of Tennis", or not?
Just so Jer9Ball isn't the only one who gets roasted in this thread, I'd like to say I don't believe in "systems", either. Aiming is NOT a science, and no "system" can account for all variables in aiming. Ask pros how they aim, and they'll either come up with some bullshit answer or they'll be truthful and say, "I don't know."
People can say they use systems all they want, but aiming is nothing more than fine-tuned intuition. Beginners use systems to try to get to the point where aiming is intuition, but as players advance, aiming stops being a conscious thought exercise and turns into an unconscious act. As Jer9Ball said, he looks at the balls and shoots. I do the same thing.
Here are some questions to think about. Do you think Pedro, Clemens, Johnson, Santana, etc., use a "system" for pitching? Do you think they consciously think about foot position, grip pressure, release points, leg kick, humidity, and wind speed when they pitch? Do you think when Vick throws a football he's thinking about inertia (as a side note, do you think he can spell "inertia"
), air density, altitude, MPH, and drag coefficients?
When these guys were learning to do the things they do, I can guarantee somebody taught them a standard technique (or "system" if you will). LEARNING a task requires a methodology. Once the methodology is MASTERED, though, conscious thought is no longer required. These guys don't have to think about all the crap because they've learned it and ingrained it. In the process, they've incorporated the standard technique into their own technique unconsciously. This is true in everything. Take driving a car, for instance. We had to be taught how to use the parts of the car, such as brakes, gears, steering wheel, gas pedal, etc. After driving a certain amount of time, no conscious thought is necessary to drive a car - it's second nature. When learning to drive a manual, you constantly have to think about choosing the right gear, upshifting, downshifting, etc. Once again, after a certain amount of time, that becomes second nature, and conscious thought becomes unnecessary. And guess what, everybody who masters a task does it different from everybody else! No two pitchers have exactly the same motion. No two drivers drive exactly the same. No two golfers have the same swing. They've all taken the same basic information and methodology and uniquely come up with their own solution, thus throwing the "system" out the window.
-djb
People can say they use systems all they want, but aiming is nothing more than fine-tuned intuition. Beginners use systems to try to get to the point where aiming is intuition, but as players advance, aiming stops being a conscious thought exercise and turns into an unconscious act. As Jer9Ball said, he looks at the balls and shoots. I do the same thing.
Here are some questions to think about. Do you think Pedro, Clemens, Johnson, Santana, etc., use a "system" for pitching? Do you think they consciously think about foot position, grip pressure, release points, leg kick, humidity, and wind speed when they pitch? Do you think when Vick throws a football he's thinking about inertia (as a side note, do you think he can spell "inertia"
), air density, altitude, MPH, and drag coefficients?When these guys were learning to do the things they do, I can guarantee somebody taught them a standard technique (or "system" if you will). LEARNING a task requires a methodology. Once the methodology is MASTERED, though, conscious thought is no longer required. These guys don't have to think about all the crap because they've learned it and ingrained it. In the process, they've incorporated the standard technique into their own technique unconsciously. This is true in everything. Take driving a car, for instance. We had to be taught how to use the parts of the car, such as brakes, gears, steering wheel, gas pedal, etc. After driving a certain amount of time, no conscious thought is necessary to drive a car - it's second nature. When learning to drive a manual, you constantly have to think about choosing the right gear, upshifting, downshifting, etc. Once again, after a certain amount of time, that becomes second nature, and conscious thought becomes unnecessary. And guess what, everybody who masters a task does it different from everybody else! No two pitchers have exactly the same motion. No two drivers drive exactly the same. No two golfers have the same swing. They've all taken the same basic information and methodology and uniquely come up with their own solution, thus throwing the "system" out the window.
-djb
drivermaker
Banned
jer9ball said:
Well, you haven't answered my question either, which I asked first. Which is, what is your exact process of aligning your cue, the CB and OB, and visualizing the shot? What do you SEE to make the shot?
I've read the "Inner Game of Golf". Now, answer my question.
drivermaker said:
"Inner Game of Tennis" is the original. (same author; Tim Gallwey) So do you see how the concepts there can be applied to shooting pool, and why I use it to support my arguement? Let the inner self shoot the shot, not self 1.
As for your question: Yes, I did answer it. I look, and I shoot. That's as cognitive as it gets, for me. To each their own. The only time I use something like a system, is for 3 rail kick shots.
I overheard someone ask Luc Salvas how he did a particular key and amazing shot during a match (the question was posed after the match). Luc said "I don't know...set it up". They setup the balls again, and Luc shot it again. This time, he missed, but he was able to explain the way he hit the cueball.
Last edited:
drivermaker
Banned
DoomCue said:Just so Jer9Ball isn't the only one who gets roasted in this thread, I'd like to say I don't believe in "systems", either. Aiming is NOT a science, and no "system" can account for all variables in aiming. Ask pros how they aim, and they'll either come up with some bullshit answer or they'll be truthful and say, "I don't know."
People can say they use systems all they want, but aiming is nothing more than fine-tuned intuition. Beginners use systems to try to get to the point where aiming is intuition, but as players advance, aiming stops being a conscious thought exercise and turns into an unconscious act. As Jer9Ball said, he looks at the balls and shoots. I do the same thing.
Here are some questions to think about. Do you think Pedro, Clemens, Johnson, Santana, etc., use a "system" for pitching? Do you think they consciously think about foot position, grip pressure, release points, leg kick, humidity, and wind speed when they pitch? Do you think when Vick throws a football he's thinking about inertia (as a side note, do you think he can spell "inertia"
When these guys were learning to do the things they do, I can guarantee somebody taught them a standard technique (or "system" if you will). LEARNING a task requires a methodology. Once the methodology is MASTERED, though, conscious thought is no longer required. These guys don't have to think about all the crap because they've learned it and ingrained it. In the process, they've incorporated the standard technique into their own technique unconsciously. This is true in everything. Take driving a car, for instance. We had to be taught how to use the parts of the car, such as brakes, gears, steering wheel, gas pedal, etc. After driving a certain amount of time, no conscious thought is necessary to drive a car - it's second nature. When learning to drive a manual, you constantly have to think about choosing the right gear, upshifting, downshifting, etc. Once again, after a certain amount of time, that becomes second nature, and conscious thought becomes unnecessary. And guess what, everybody who masters a task does it different from everybody else! No two pitchers have exactly the same motion. No two drivers drive exactly the same. No two golfers have the same swing. They've all taken the same basic information and methodology and uniquely come up with their own solution, thus throwing the "system" out the window.
-djb
No, a pitcher doesn't have to think about anything, however, rather than using the word "system", lets interchange it with "style" or "motion". You can in fact throw a ball underhand, (softball); overhand; side arm; or somewhere in-between. Those can be classified and identified. And a really good pitcher can choose to come with multiple deliveries throughout a game to throw the batters off.
A golfer can swing the club "upright", "flat", "circular", and can align himself "open", "closed", or "square". This isn't a system, but it can be identified, qualified, and described. It's a "style" or "preferance". Sometimes their preference may or may not be optimal in performance. That's why a pitching coach or golf instructor can see what they're doing and suggest change or something different to get them on track again.
The way we see a shot, aligning the CB to OB or the cue to OB is really a visualization preference that we've acquired THROUGH many years of play and practice and don't have to think much about, if at all. But it can be identified, qualified, and described and there are more ways than one to see something and aim a shot. It's kinda like those eye/brain teaser pictures where you see a face of a person and then an animal if you look long enough.
For all you know, or I know, there might even be something better out there that we've never tried. Wouldn't THAT be amazing and exciting??!!
Hey DJB, glad to see that others aren't afraid to voice a difference of opinion. Eloquent arguement too.
I'm not going to reiterate Gallwey's ideas here. I know that alot of people have read the book (and its variations), and found it to be very good. Worth a read if you're interested in learning about learning.
cheers,
jeremy
I'm not going to reiterate Gallwey's ideas here. I know that alot of people have read the book (and its variations), and found it to be very good. Worth a read if you're interested in learning about learning.
cheers,
jeremy
drivermaker said:
I would say there are damn near an INFINITE number of ways to see something and aim a shot since no two people aim the same way. Therefore, pigeonholing those ways accurately is IMPOSSIBLE - which is why I don't believe in "systems" - they do work as a generic base from which to start, but are easily outdone by what our individual minds come up with given enough time and practice.
I've already accepted that there might even be something better out there that I've never tried - in fact, I expect it since I assume nobody does anything the way I do it. I've been an instructor in things from 6th grade math to information technology, as well as pool, and I know better than to assume my way is the only way (or even the "right" way, for that matter).
-djb
drivermaker
Banned
Mungtor said:
He never answered shit.
O.K., O.K. already. I dial 1-510-581-3010 and when this deep voice comes on I say: "Hey Hal, I need some more help...gimme another method of aiming". Works everytime if you show respect, are likable, and not a bad mouthing prick about his methodology".
drivermaker
Banned
DoomCue said:
I wouldn't say there are an INFINITE number of ways to see something and aim, but there are a whole hell of a lot. Pigeonholing or identifying those ways are very possible. No, they don't all work as well for us as they might for others, our brains or something doesn't grasp it and we have to discard it and move on, but a number of them do.
Our individual minds are just working to reinvent the wheel. None of us are Einsteins that come up with something new. If it's been done in pool, it's out there for the taking.
Let's go back to your baseball analogy and all of the great pitchers you named. When a catcher calls for a certain pitch, be it a fast ball, sinker, screwball, inside or outside curve, riser, forkball, knuckleball, each one of those pitchers has to at least think about gripping the ball properly to deliver each of those pitches. It can be split finger, fingers together, on the knuckles, between the fingers, across the seams one way or another, on the finger tips, or more in the palm. It just HAS TO BE to throw those pitches and make them work. Do they think about it?? Most would probably say "NO", but they make that setup in their grip either subconsciously or unconsciously, but some part of their brain is THINKING about it. In practice, and with their pitching coach, you can damn well better believe that they're working on things CONSCIOUSLY, especially when they're not throwing that good and getting hit. It can be identified.
Quit getting hung up on the word "system". It's really an aiming method, style, or preference. Just a way to visualize a shot. When I'm playing, I think of NONE of that crap regarding stroke, aim, or whatever. But in practice, you gotta review the fundamentals from time to time and be a little more cognizant. I'd be willing to bet a whole bunch of money that I could teach you some things about aiming that would improve your perspective and consistency and be a real eye opener. And I'll bet that you could also pass some things on to me that my pea brain never thought about also.
jer
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post. Now seeing that you were party writing in jest and were really just trying to emphasize practice, it was fine.
But now that we've gotten a little more serious, I'll right this.
I'm seeing us talking about using a system or not using one. To debate this I think we need to go to the most simple system that exist. I think this would be, discover where the object ball needs to be hit so it will move toward the pocket and determining how off center the cue ball needs to be so that it hits that spot.
I'm going to talk about the second part first. This is the part that jer and DoomCue are talking about. How can you determine how off center the cue ball needs to be so that it hits that spot. You can't. You can only estimate it. When you are down on the cue stick aiming, you can't even see that side of the cue ball. If this could be determined, everyone would be a pro (slight over statement there). This is the part that requires practice. Years of practice. Your years of practice enable you to estimate this better and better. Not perfectly though, nobody makes the shot every time. Your natural ability to estimate this has a lot to do with how many years it takes you to get at least proficient with it. Doing this is part of the system, but there is no system for doing it. Thus the disagreement, 'what is your system', 'I don't have one'.
Now for the first part. Discovering where the object ball needs to be hit so that it moves toward the pocket. This is the part of the system that I and I think drivermaker are talking about. Anyone that plays pool to any degree at all uses this part of the system. The farther away from the pocket the object ball is, the smaller this spot is. Yup, that is why long shots are harder. Through years of practice, on shorter shots you might be able to just feel where this spot is right along with feeling the previous paragraphs part. But on a long tough cut, you had better know where this very small spot is. That is why you see even the pros walk around to take a look at a harder shot. They are making sure they know where this spot is.
Having no system would mean that you don't concern yourself about where the cue ball is when it hits the object ball. If that is how you do it, your going to have a tough time.
See you all tomorrow
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post. Now seeing that you were party writing in jest and were really just trying to emphasize practice, it was fine.
But now that we've gotten a little more serious, I'll right this.
I'm seeing us talking about using a system or not using one. To debate this I think we need to go to the most simple system that exist. I think this would be, discover where the object ball needs to be hit so it will move toward the pocket and determining how off center the cue ball needs to be so that it hits that spot.
I'm going to talk about the second part first. This is the part that jer and DoomCue are talking about. How can you determine how off center the cue ball needs to be so that it hits that spot. You can't. You can only estimate it. When you are down on the cue stick aiming, you can't even see that side of the cue ball. If this could be determined, everyone would be a pro (slight over statement there). This is the part that requires practice. Years of practice. Your years of practice enable you to estimate this better and better. Not perfectly though, nobody makes the shot every time. Your natural ability to estimate this has a lot to do with how many years it takes you to get at least proficient with it. Doing this is part of the system, but there is no system for doing it. Thus the disagreement, 'what is your system', 'I don't have one'.
Now for the first part. Discovering where the object ball needs to be hit so that it moves toward the pocket. This is the part of the system that I and I think drivermaker are talking about. Anyone that plays pool to any degree at all uses this part of the system. The farther away from the pocket the object ball is, the smaller this spot is. Yup, that is why long shots are harder. Through years of practice, on shorter shots you might be able to just feel where this spot is right along with feeling the previous paragraphs part. But on a long tough cut, you had better know where this very small spot is. That is why you see even the pros walk around to take a look at a harder shot. They are making sure they know where this spot is.
Having no system would mean that you don't concern yourself about where the cue ball is when it hits the object ball. If that is how you do it, your going to have a tough time.
See you all tomorrow