How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

im throwing in the white towel on aiming on AZ, i have tried everything possible to contribute to it and have come to the conclusion that all this back and forth is just a battle of egos! Guys like patrick johnson,etc do not give a shit if aiming systems works or not,etc...im out
 
Last edited:
puertorociii said:
The Hal system is something I would have loved to learn. Heard good thing about it. But was always unsuccessful finding any supporting documentation.
Click to expand...
That's because there isn't any supporting documentation. System users learn it by word of mouth and usually aren't able to give detailed explanations because they don't really know objectively how the system works for them.

This thread is an attempt to shed some light on that very topic, and to suggest that you don't necessarily need a fractional aiming "system" to make use of the technique.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Ah... back to the central thread topic.

I don't think it's important for a "reference grid aimer" to be able to hit these fractional alignments perfectly (so they produce 14, 30 and 48-degree cuts). If the shooter consistently produces 12, 25 and 40-degree cuts (for example), then those alignments/cut angles will work just as well for references. The important thing is that the reference cut angles are always the same so they're reliable guides for that shooter.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I agree for I produce a few degrees less than the geometric results with a center CB hit and get closer to the geometric cut angles with a little outside english, top or draw to compensate for CIT. This knowledge are also a usefull tools as is extreme outside english to overcut the shot.
Thanks.
 
First, as to my post and response I got a few days ago (= 5 pages ago) - obviously no aiming system is perfect or will enable someone to make every ball 100% of the time. We are human, we make mistakes, either in sighting, pivoting/moving into the shot, or mechanics of the shot itself. Even the best players in the world make bad strokes from time to time, steer the ball, etc.

However, without aiming correctly, you'll never make a ball no matter how good your setup and mechanics are. Even though these threads focus purely on aiming, and some others may focus purely on some fundamental step, it should be obvious to all that they are intertwined and both are required at a high degree of accuracy and repeatability in order to play this game well. We can debate which one is more important, but certainly working on and improving either of these things, as well as pattern play, speed control, mental focus, etc., will elevate one's game.


As to the original post, certainly fractional (or any) aiming systems can help players build a cataog of reference shots and help build a solid framework and preshot routine, as discussed in the other aiming threads. There certainly is some element of feel using CTE/Pro1, but no more so than using any other aiming method. Whether it's ghost ball, CTE, 90/90, fractional, shadow, etc, we still have to estimate where the correct line of aim and hope our eyes, based on experience, are telling us the correct spot. We still have to align our bodies to enable us to deliver the cue ball to that spot. We still have to move into the shot along that line, place our bridge hand in the correct position, and make sure everything is consistently lined up per our normal individual setup. All before attempting to make a decent stroke to actually deliver the cue ball to our intended spot.

To me, finding the proper aim using ghost ball is no different than finding it using CTE or other systems, just another means to an end. I still have to visualize something, an invisible ball/spot, some lines, a fractional overlap, a shadow, etc., and then align my body to be able to deliver the cueball to that spot. As I move into the shot, I still have to place my bridge hand in the correct position based on what my eyes are telling me. Whether I get there in a perceived straight motion or by pivoting to that spot in a consistently learned manner is no different. I think with either method our eyes are leading the way and we just automatically follow by building our stance and bridge around the shot at hand.

Scott
 
champ2107 said:
im throwing in the white towel on aiming on AZ, i have tried everything possible to contribute to it and have come to the conclusion that all this back and forth is just a battle of egos! Guys like patrick johnson,etc do not give a shit if aiming systems works or not,etc...im out
Click to expand...

Champ, you seem to be afflicted similarly. If people here won't believe you in your belief that you can teach anyone CTE, you get angry and "throw in the towel." That smacks a bit of "ego", as well.

I want to give PJ credit. This thread has been FAR more civil than past episodes of this epic drama. He has tried to remain on topic, and hasn't resorted to the toxic tone that previous threads have endured.

Rather, he's has been attacked in this thread. I realize much of that can be rationalized, based on previous history here. But I think if everyone could follow PJ's lead (at least so far as this thread has taken us) and discuss the matter civilly, and perhaps agree to disagree... maybe we'll have had some progress.

Then again, probably the whole thing will blow up in a page or two, and we'll be back where we always end up.

I congratulate you, Patrick. You appear to be taking the high road. I hope it continues, and I am enjoying the civil discussion.
 
I like the "NEW" Patrick Johnson style of posting. I've always said that we can all learn from Patrick. He has a lot to offer this forum.

Maybe we can all learn how to "talk" to one another without using the "needle" for "shits and giggles". :nono:

JoeyA
 
well i was trying to explain as much as i could without putting the guys system he sells and teaches on the biggest pool forum on the internet. I could put everything out there and explain the entire system if i want. This is Stans full time business and he has a family, i don't want to harm his business, i am not dr dave who has no morals,ethics or respect who i believe does this pool thing as a hobby on the side. I have said this before on here and these guys like to take advantage of that for there own ego's and internet fame!
 
champ2107:
i am not dr dave who has no morals,ethics or respect
Click to expand...
Yet another unprovoked, unwarranted and sleazy attack on Dr. Dave. I'm highlighting it because the moderator(s) seem to need a little help seeing this kind of stuff when it comes from one of our poor, victimized aiming system users.

You're not Dr. Dave in any respect.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Thanks, although you might be in the minority with that sentiment.


Well, my intent is to simply speak my mind as usual, so maybe just another brief visit.


Deep end? You must be thinking of another pool.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

read your post PJ and nice try but i speak my mind always and you speak from your ego! and you also try and duck and dodge away from the answers you ask for and receive :) you dont have what it takes to win against me, feel free to keep trying and maybe you will get me banned :) and if your ego wasn't so big you would agree with me about dr dave:)
 
Last edited:
At some point you have to pull the trigger. Before that you have to point the cue in some direction.

How do aiming systems help people? Easy, they point you in the right direction. They take most of the feel out it to the point where it feels like no feel at all.

If the whole point of this thread is to again say that the getting to the aiming line is based on feel even with an aiming system then it's pointless.

If you start with a set of instructions and you follow those instructions then there is little to no guesswork involved. Follow the steps and you get down on the ball and you're either on the shot line or you are not.

Only your success rate tells you whether you are doing it right or not.

As Sean pointed out by asking his wife to extend the tube to the ball that simple visualization method improved her accuracy immediately with little to no FEEL (or guessing) but instead with references solid objects that she can see.

A line to an edge takes feel down to almost nothing. Sean's wife experienced something that most of us know who use these systems and namely that is with proper references the body and cue is forced into position.

Now, for some people, like Sean who sees the GB as if it were a real solid object, GB is a prefectly fine reference that gets him lined up dead perfect. For others using the center of the cue ball or the edge of the object ball or overlapping fractions, or the shadows is the reference that they find resonates best with them.

In all cases though the reference IS what forces the eye to choose where direct the body to stand and subsequently where the bridge hand must go to maintain balance. The proof is in the success rate. Nothing else.

When the ONLY change is a change in how one approachs the shot and the results are immediately positive then the increase in performance cannot be attributed to feel. The resulting rise in skill level is because of learning a better way to see the shot.


The tighter the reference the less feel is involved, to the point where it's practically zero. Now is that a good thing or not? Well I think that there has to be some touch to know how to hit the ball the right way. When you are on the right shot line then it's SUPER EASY to throw the object ball off line with poor execution. So this is where feel in shot making comes into play in a big way.
 
John:
If the whole point of this thread is to again say that the getting to the aiming line is based on feel even with an aiming system then it's pointless.
Click to expand...
The main point of the thread (as I've said) is to explore how aiming systems help with the "feel" part of aiming. Knowing that all aiming is accomplished in part with "feel" underscores the importance of understanding how systems cope with it.

Pointless would be digging in your heels and refusing to seriously consider that feel plays an important part in your favorite aiming system, denying yourself a deeper understanding of it.

pj
chgo

P.S. Understanding how aiming systems really work so they can be more effective for more people has been the point of the continuous efforts (by some) to "get real" about aiming systems since they were first discussed on RSB more than 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
The main point of the thread (as I've said) is to explore how aiming systems help with the "feel" part of aiming. Knowing that all aiming is accomplished in part with "feel" underscores the importance of understanding how systems cope with it.

Pointless would be digging in your heels and refusing to seriously consider that feel plays an important part in your favorite aiming system, denying yourself a deeper understanding of it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Maniac
 
There is feel in every aiming system and some more than others and some take place earlier in the set up and some in the middle and some at the end!!....Now im out unless PJ says something to drag me back in.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Yes, I've seen the details on your blog and on Stan's DVD, and they add nothing definitive to this step. Your description of it here is almost the same as how I'd describe making any aiming adjustment "by feel".


I agree that the outcome is the same whether you think the aiming process is entirely "mechanical" or not, but our understanding of the technique is not the same either way and I think understanding it is worth trying to do.


CTE is obviously a fractional aiming system which obviously relies heavily on "feel", even though its users (for some unknown reason) don't seem to like those facts. So in that respect this is on-topic for this thread.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


I'll have to say I am indifferent about the technicalities of "feel" and how it applies to CTE. I don't disagree with you, but I don't think the understanding is the same from person to person and this is what brings forth the arguments.

After giving CTE the time and effort to see it work, I can see how someone could be inclined to say that there isn't feel involved. The conscious level of pivoting "feels" very mechanical. If there is feel involved in the system, it has been reduced to a negligible/subconscious level. The important thing is the result, and the effort put forth to get there. I focus on getting in line, sliding into the shot and pivoting. This gets me to the aim line again and again. I don't do any conscious adjustments for the pivot from shot to shot. Whatever is happening, whether by feel, mechanics or voodoo, the system is very consistent and repeatable.
 
mohrt said:
After giving CTE the time and effort to see it work, I can see how someone could be inclined to say that there isn't feel involved. The conscious level of pivoting "feels" very mechanical. If there is feel involved in the system, it has been reduced to a negligible/subconscious level.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your implication that subconscious = negligible. I believe we only achieve the extreme aiming precision we need in pool by relying on the subconscious - aiming wouldn't work without it.

The important thing is the result
Click to expand...
I don't think you can separate the result from how you get it.

Whatever is happening, whether by feel, mechanics or voodoo, the system is very consistent and repeatable.
Click to expand...
I'd like to replace "whatever is happening" with better understanding so we can learn, devise and teach even better ways.

pj
chgo
 
mohrt said:
I'll have to say I am indifferent about the technicalities of "feel" and how it applies to CTE. I don't disagree with you, but I don't think the understanding is the same from person to person and this is what brings forth the arguments.

After giving CTE the time and effort to see it work, I can see how someone could be inclined to say that there isn't feel involved. The conscious level of pivoting "feels" very mechanical. If there is feel involved in the system, it has been reduced to a negligible/subconscious level. The important thing is the result, and the effort put forth to get there. I focus on getting in line, sliding into the shot and pivoting. This gets me to the aim line again and again. I don't do any conscious adjustments for the pivot from shot to shot. Whatever is happening, whether by feel, mechanics or voodoo, the system is very consistent and repeatable.
Click to expand...

i don't know your system lamas but i believe the feel involved in your system starts as your watching where you think the cue ball is going to stop and it increases a few steps away from the shot and peaks as you look square to the cue ball and object ball and then drops off...my opinion, what do you think?
 
The important thing is the result
Click to expand...
I don't think you can separate the result from how you get it.
Click to expand...

If one is process oriented and that process is one that can achieve repeatable results then you will most likely get the desired result if one properly executes the process.

That statement does not work in reverse. Simply getting the result in no ways insinuates that the process was correct or even guarantees the desired process was performed at all. It is one reason we should seek not to be results oriented thinkers. In pool, that's a big obstacle to overcome because the ball falling in the hole signals to us that we did something correctly. It is a very powerful stimulus but it can short change our progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top