How Do We Aim?

[BasementDweller]

How do we aim at the most fundamental level?

I think that no matter what method or system an individual uses, our brains work pretty much the same way for all of us when it comes to aiming: it's all memorization and "picture matching". We build "picture libraries" of successful shots and try to find the closest match in the library for the shot we're trying now.

Finding the matching "shot picture" in our picture libraries for the current shot we're trying to aim is done by our subconscious "librarian". We're not consciously aware of this process - we don't see each library shot picture as its compared with the real shot at hand. If we did it consciously each shot would take hours to decide and shoot - but our subconscious can do it in a flash. Because we're not consciously aware of the aiming process, it can seem as if we're groping in the dark for the answer - I think this is what we call "aiming by feel", and I think it's done by everybody on every shot.

So what about the different aiming methods and systems used by individual players? I think these are "facilitators" for the "by feel" aiming we all do. We use different aiming methods and systems as "Dewey decimal systems" for our picture libraries, helping us file and catalogue "shot pictures" as we experience them and then helping us quickly and accurately find the right match when needed for each new shot.

It's a good thing we have the subconscious to do this - if we tried to do it "manually" (consciously) we'd become quickly overwhelmed and bogged down by the mountain of data to process. But we can consciously help our subconscious "computer" with the memorizing-matching task by adopting habits of consciously categorizing the shots we see at the table. This could be as simple as "thick" vs. "thin" or it could include as much more detail as the conscious mind can handle in the heat of battle (for example, comparing cut angles with "system alignments"). This is how I think "aiming systems" and "aiming by feel" are really parts of the same thing.

pj
chgo

While I tend to agree with what you’re saying I do think you can aim consciously. It can be painstaking and it's quite boring to watch someone do this but I don't see any reason it can't be done. I don't really think you can play real high level pool doing this but it can be done.

Here's a typical scenario were someone would be aiming consciously:
- Player goes over to the object ball points at the contact point with his cue. Makes a note of where this point is.
- Now he walks over to the cue ball and figures out which part of the cue ball he needs to hit the contact point with. He does all of this while in the standing position
- Now he gets down and shoots.

That part can be fairly conscious. I guess the fine tune adjusting is usually done on a more subconscious level, but I suppose this could even be done consciously. What I've found out the past year or so is the straighter I cue the less fine tune adjusting I do. I see the shot line and I get down on it and shoot.

I think the biggest reason players have a problem categorizing their "shot pictures" is because they don't cue that well. Us pool players figure out all kinds of different ways to get balls to go in the hole without cueing straight. This usually just involves a last second cue steer, or always having to impart english on particular shots. It is these types of shots that make guys think they have trouble with aiming because when you miss you really aren't sure why. The easiest thing to blame is your ability to aim.

What I've found is if you (not PJ) want to quickly start cataloging all these shots - cue straight and trust your shot line. Find the line while standing, get down on the shot and shoot it. If you cue straight and you miss the ball you will immediately know if you hit too thick or too thin. At this point, the mind is a powerful thing and it will begin to do the hard work of memorizing all these shots for you.

I've solved the majority of my "aiming" issues by working on my cueing. It really works.


***not sure where the wink on the top of my post came from so pay no attention to that***

 

[mohrt]

TFor crying out loud, systems ARE crutches for those who can't see in three dimensions or lack basic geometry skills for some crazy reason.

I completely disagree. Everyone uses a "system". Ghost-ball is a system. contact-to-contact point is a system. If you don't use a system, then what do you use? Whatever it may be, it can be categorized as a system. "See the ball, shoot it into the pocket" is a system, albeit a loose one at that. If not, how can you even begin to shoot a ball toward a pocket?

No matter how you aim, with enough practice you can reduce aiming to subconscious movements. ie. when you first started playing pool, maybe thought about contact points and aimed at them. After enough practice, this becomes subconscious. Aiming gets out of the way so your mind is on another part of the shot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...when you first started playing pool, maybe thought about contact points and aimed at them. After enough practice, this becomes subconscious.

I think it starts out being mostly subconscious, but we (of course) only notice the conscious part. After enough practice, the conscious part can (but doesn't have to) become more and more subconscious too.

pj
chgo

 

[scottjen26]

I think most of the arguments are largely due to misconceptions. When someone says a blanket statement like "CTE requires feel and estimation", that leads one to think that when executing CTE there is a bunch of "guessing" going on, or conscious acts of adjustment. That is absolutely false. Any "feel" in the system is reduced to something subconscious. It is actually a very systematic approach to the conscious mind. Line up, slide in, pivot, shoot. Over and over. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. The technicalities of "feel" going on is a red herring, its nothing you need to worry yourself about to use it. I know there is an academic side to all of this, we just want to know more. That is great and I hope we all reach a higher understanding, its good for the game.

...

Excellent post mohrt, well put...

As to the original thread - I agree that our subconscious processes a tremendous amount of sensory information (sight, touch, sound) and combines it with a large catalog of previous experiences to help us determine what is needed to execute each and every shot. The same way that happens to enable us to hit a golf ball accurately to a target far away, or hit a tennis ball over an obstacle at 80mph, or throw a ball to a target a hundred or more feet away, etc etc. Certainly that happens the same way regardless what alignment system is being used.

Mohrt's point above is valid - and I know Patrick we may continue to disagree on this and that's fine. That aside, using CTE or any other systems is just another way for us to perceive the shot and train our brain as above. I think they all do the same thing just in different ways:

Ghost ball - Look at invisible ball making contact with object ball
Contact Point - Look at a certain side of the cue ball hitting contact point
CTE - Look at lines between points on CB and OB
Double distance - Look at distances on OB from contact point
Shadow methods - Look at point in the shadow of the ball

They all require visually estimating to determing the point that you should be aiming at. Some of the methods require you to aim directly along that visually determined point, others require some sort of pivoting from that determined point to reach the eventual actual aim point. Once that's determined, every other action that takes place is built from muscle memory and repetition - aligning to the shot to support shooting toward the determined aim point, executing the shot to propel the cue ball to that spot, etc.

Scott

 

[Patrick Johnson]

They all require visually estimating to determing the point that you should be aiming at.

I don't think we really "aim at a point" in most cases; I think we try to duplicate a "shot picture" (two discs overlapping a certain amount, etc.). The reason I think this distinction is important is that it clarifies that there's no place in the aiming process where estimation stops and "mechanics" takes over - estimation permeates the process from end to end.

...others require some sort of pivoting from that determined point to reach the eventual actual aim point. Once that's determined, every other action that takes place is built from muscle memory and repetition - aligning to the shot to support shooting toward the determined aim point, executing the shot to propel the cue ball to that spot, etc.

Again, I disagree with the false distinction between "determining the point" and "aligning with" it - I think it's all one process (sometimes broken down into "steps") that's mostly estimation.

pj
chgo

 

[barking]

what stan said.
here we go again with contact point is an estimation. it is a point, not an area. the POINT on the cb which hits it is easy to determine exactly as well. prove it differently. perhaps YOU cant determine it but many have no problem.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... here we go again with contact point is an estimation. it is a point, not an area.

Actually, the target is a small area that changes size with the OB's distance from the pocket (and, to a smaller degree, with the pocket's size). But that's beside the point (nyuk nyuk).

... the POINT on the cb which hits it is easy to determine exactly as well.

Estimating the location of the CB contact point is the most common challenge in aiming. It's why we have most aiming systems.

pj
chgo

 

[barking]

pj
it is exactly the same as the cb contact point, just flipped over. doesnt change with distance either. ob contact point is exact and it is a point. one can also see it as such.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

pj
it is exactly the same as the cb contact point, just flipped over. doesnt change with distance either. ob contact point is exact and it is a point. one can also see it as such.

You don't seem to have understood what I said about all of this.

Anyway, the only thing that matters to this discussion is that you can't see the OB contact point when you're aiming, so in order to use it for aiming you have to estimate where it is. That's the main reason that aiming is hard.

pj
chgo

 

[scottjen26]

I don't think we really "aim at a point" in most cases; I think we try to duplicate a "shot picture" (two discs overlapping a certain amount, etc.). The reason I think this distinction is important is that it clarifies that there's no place in the aiming process where estimation stops and "mechanics" takes over - estimation permeates the process from end to end.


Again, I disagree with the false distinction between "determining the point" and "aligning with" it - I think it's all one process (sometimes broken down into "steps") that's mostly estimation.

pj
chgo

Agree that maybe visually we aren't aiming by actually picking out a point, that was a simplification. Before CTE I did exactly what you said, I pictured the cue ball overlapping the object ball a certain amount to send it on the correct angle to the pocket. Was easier for me to visualize than trying to send the cueball over an imaginary ball, although the results are the same.

Ultimately though we are aiming down a line from the shaft to a point in space, regardless of how we visualize it. We can only be aiming at one point, not an area. If we move even slightly we are now aiming at a different point.

My "point" in my post was that in my opinion all of this aiming activity, no matter how you do it, is estimation combined with what you mentioned which is our subconscious combining visual data with experiential data to determine where to aim, how hard to hit, etc. Yes you can easily determine the correct contact point (omitting adjustments for CIT, english, etc.). But you can't aim directly at it and make the ball unless it's straight in, so no matter what aiming approach you use there is still estimation, experience, etc. involved in learning how to deliver the cue ball to the proper spot where it makes contact with the object ball contact point. Only the steps that you use to get there that differ.
Scott

 

[duckie]

Reading some of these replies reminds be of a joke. It seems the Lone Ranger and Tonto were surround by Indians. The Lone Ranger looks at Tonto and say's "Well, looks like we are done for." To which, Tonto replied "What do you mean we?"

Point is the way the word "we" is being used to make some points. We all don't do the same thing the same way, so you can not imply that "I don't think we really "aim at a point" in most cases".

I sure do. I also look at an area to put the CB on certain shots, mostly when sending the CB 2 or more rails to a OB.

It is bad form to think that your opinion speaks for a whole group of people in they way they do things. We all ain't the same.

The use of the word "we" is used in than manner in some of these replies in order to justify or validate someones opinion when there are no facts to support the statements to begin with.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...We all don't do the same thing the same way, so you can not imply that "I don't think we really "aim at a point" in most cases".

I sure do.

I aim contact point-to-contact point, so my target is a point (the OB contact point). But I have to hit that point with another point (the CB contact point) which I can't see. Because I can't see the CB point, I can't actually "aim" it directly at the OB point - I have to construct a "shot picture" (an amount of CB/OB overlap, a doubled offset from OB center, etc., etc.) that I calculate (or estimate or guess or whatever) will make the CB point hit the OB point.

This is the sense that I mean we (all of us, no matter what method we use) don't "aim at a point" - we're always, in one way or another, estimating how to line the CB/OB up in some "indirect" way because we can't see the CB point we want to "aim" at the OB point.

pj
chgo

 

[genomachino]

There are about 7 different types of WE'S...

Reading some of these replies reminds be of a joke. It seems the Lone Ranger and Tonto were surround by Indians. The Lone Ranger looks at Tonto and say's "Well, looks like we are done for." To which, Tonto replied "What do you mean we?"

Point is the way the word "we" is being used to make some points. We all don't do the same thing the same way, so you can not imply that "I don't think we really "aim at a point" in most cases".

I sure do. I also look at an area to put the CB on certain shots, mostly when sending the CB 2 or more rails to a OB.

It is bad form to think that your opinion speaks for a whole group of people in they way they do things. We all ain't the same.

The use of the word "we" is used in than manner in some of these replies in order to justify or validate someones opinion when there are no facts to support the statements to begin with.

Once you can indentify which category your eye vison dominance fits into it is all the same.

Everyone that is right eye dominant has the same exact trouble with aiming that other right eye dominant players have.

The left eye domnant players are for the most part the same also.

Then there is the players that absolutely shoots with one eye. They could actaully put a patch on the other eye and shoot the same.

Then there is opposite eye dominant players. They also are pretty much the same.

There are 2 other categories I prefer not to explain. To complicated to write out here.

Once the category is identfied it's a snap to teach this player to aim extremely well.

I've proved this over and over on the forum here. It even works well teaching this over the phone with the player at a table.

Who would have thunk it?

I've got it right.

I just got into Minot, Nd yesterday. Gave 2 lessons at The Rack. Nice poolhall.

After giving those 2 lessons with and the players explaining to others how well Perfect Aim works, I have 10 lessons set up in the next 4 days.

3 today, 3 Wed, 3 thursday and 1 on Friday. I can only do 3 a day.

I have my camera with me and I'm going to try and interview each player before and after. I need to show the world that these Perfect Aim lessons are 99% successful.

Just trying to help players play better wherever I go.

Just one man that has it right and knows for sure it's right.

 

[EddySJ]

systems...

I tend to agree with Scott on what a system is supposed to do.

For me it gives me an opportunity to practice a method that helps develop a feel for what is correct to pocket the ball. Eventually, one relies less on the "system" and just starts doing things naturally or by feel. I don't think it matters what system you use, eventually you should have to rely on it less.

Would you venture to say that a preshot routine shoud be included as part of the aiming system, or where you choose to place your chin on certain shots? Fundamentals should be in place to gain the best results...

I think that if there wasn't a "feel" to the shot, then pool would become rather boring.

I am modifying how I aim (my reason for looking at this thread), and I am trying anything that will help. I don't have an opinion on a specific system, mainly because I have only tried very few.
I don't see why people argue so much about what system is better. If a system works for you, then use it.

Any thoughts?

Jeremy

 

[Shaky1]

Mike Sigel makes my head want to explde! :embarrassed2:
He was showing me a few shots yesterday, Said that they are straight!
They weren't straight! After he showed me what to do, they were straight!!! :embarrassed2: Left or right english didn't matter!!!!
They were still straight!!! He says when he is getting good position, every shot is straight!!
My head hurts

 

[champ2107]

Mike Sigel makes my head want to explde! :embarrassed2:
He was showing me a few shots yesterday, Said that they are straight!
They weren't straight! After he showed me what to do, they were straight!!! :embarrassed2: Left or right english didn't matter!!!!
They were still straight!!! He says when he is getting good position, every shot is straight!!
My head hurts

you just received great information! i hope you continue to look into it! bangers on this site will tell you not to waste your time, because its way over there heads, do not listen to the bangers on this site! I have been exchanging emails with a pro and he said the same thing and i quote him "i will make it appear as if every shot is straight in"



here is a quote from him, i like

"I understand your point and it reminds me there's another similarity between music and pool,there are thousands of notes in a song, just like there's thousands (Einstein said 6 Million) of shots in pool but when you break music down there's themes and variations on those themes, the same thing applies to pool, if you see numerous shots it's complicated, but if your mind starts to organize themes (with variations) you will start to see the game more systematically (and simply)....at the highest level the game all fits together and there's a lot fewer decisions , as a matter of fact at my best I only have ONE thought (theme) , and very few variations .
It's certainly frustrating if you don't have a good system....but isn't anything??? .... pool's ends up being very simple because you learn to do the same thing basically over and over, one theme with about 8 variations ."

 

[8pack]

Once you can indentify which category your eye vison dominance fits into it is all the same.

Everyone that is right eye dominant has the same exact trouble with aiming that other right eye dominant players have.

The left eye domnant players are for the most part the same also.

Then there is the players that absolutely shoots with one eye. They could actaully put a patch on the other eye and shoot the same.

Then there is opposite eye dominant players. They also are pretty much the same.

There are 2 other categories I prefer not to explain. To complicated to write out here.

Once the category is identfied it's a snap to teach this player to aim extremely well.

I've proved this over and over on the forum here. It even works well teaching this over the phone with the player at a table.

Who would have thunk it?

I've got it right.

I just got into Minot, Nd yesterday. Gave 2 lessons at The Rack. Nice poolhall.

After giving those 2 lessons with and the players explaining to others how well Perfect Aim works, I have 10 lessons set up in the next 4 days.

3 today, 3 Wed, 3 thursday and 1 on Friday. I can only do 3 a day.

I have my camera with me and I'm going to try and interview each player before and after. I need to show the world that these Perfect Aim lessons are 99% successful.

Just trying to help players play better wherever I go.

Just one man that has it right and knows for sure it's right.

Geno i can actualy switch eyes when aimng and still pocket the ball.Have you ever ran across people that can do this?

 

[8pack]

I aim contact point-to-contact point, so my target is a point (the OB contact point). But I have to hit that point with another point (the CB contact point) which I can't see. Because I can't see the CB point, I can't actually "aim" it directly at the OB point - I have to construct a "shot picture" (an amount of CB/OB overlap, a doubled offset from OB center, etc., etc.) that I calculate (or estimate or guess or whatever) will make the CB point hit the OB point.

This is the sense that I mean we (all of us, no matter what method we use) don't "aim at a point" - we're always, in one way or another, estimating how to line the CB/OB up in some "indirect" way because we can't see the CB point we want to "aim" at the OB point.

pj
chgo

Just wondering do you do this on all your shots?

 

[Not Dead Ted]

I aim contact point-to-contact point, so my target is a point (the OB contact point). But I have to hit that point with another point (the CB contact point) which I can't see. Because I can't see the CB point, I can't actually "aim" it directly at the OB point - I have to construct a "shot picture" (an amount of CB/OB overlap, a doubled offset from OB center, etc., etc.) that I calculate (or estimate or guess or whatever) will make the CB point hit the OB point.

This is the sense that I mean we (all of us, no matter what method we use) don't "aim at a point" - we're always, in one way or another, estimating how to line the CB/OB up in some "indirect" way because we can't see the CB point we want to "aim" at the OB point.

pj
chgo

You are saying that one cannot "see" centerball????

 

[8pack]

Mike Sigel makes my head want to explde! :embarrassed2:
He was showing me a few shots yesterday, Said that they are straight!
They weren't straight! After he showed me what to do, they were straight!!! :embarrassed2: Left or right english didn't matter!!!!
They were still straight!!! He says when he is getting good position, every shot is straight!!
My head hurts

So he was showing how to address the ob with side spin.

(They were still straight!!! He says when he is getting good position, every shot is straight!!
My head hurts[/QUOTE])
Sounds like Mike dont use a ld shaft.
And stop with there all straight in.Theres only one shot that is straight in.