How many aiming systems have you gone through?

bdorman said:
Hi Matt,
My first "stance" is direct from the OB to the pocket to determine the contact point. I find that I'm more accurate if I line that stance up like I'm lining up a shot; it just keeps me from becoming lackadaisical about it.

While keeping my eye on the OB contact point, I move my stance to the line behind the CB where the overlap (distance A and distance B) are equal. My accuracy improves if I take that sighting one step back from my final shot position and step into the shot, rather than trying to line it up from the final shot position (less chance of parallax error, I guess).

The only time I look at the shot from "CB full on OB" is when it's almost straight in. I think I do it because I find the equal overlap hardest to determine when it's an almost-straight-in shot. It's probably a bad habit and I should just work more at determining the equal overlap using my regular system, above.

Someone recommended starting with a view of CB-to-pocket, then OB-to-pocket, then equal overlap. I've tried that but I didn't really see what it brought to the party.
Click to expand...

Lining up point A and B is akin to center to edge (CTE) but as a more accurate start to your stance and no tip offset or pivot...just make sure that your stroke through the center of the CB is parallel to that line..I like it.:)

As I said, I use my stick to help with the A and B line while addressing the shot at hand.
 
I initially line up with my stick pointing CB center to ghost ball center, but I've never actually aimed (got to the final alignment) using any method but contact point-to-contact point "feel" learned through practice and memorization (aided by conscious comparison of where I'm pointing my stick).

Fortunately, I've always found it easy to "see" the OB contact point and have never had the crisis of confidence in my "by feel" ability that seems to plague so many.

pj
chgo
 
no one can see the object ball contact point.

Patrick Johnson said:
I initially line up with my stick pointing CB center to ghost ball center, but I've never actually aimed (got to the final alignment) using any method but contact point-to-contact point "feel" learned through practice and memorization (aided by conscious comparison of where I'm pointing my stick).

Fortunately, I've always found it easy to "see" the OB contact point and have never had the crisis of confidence in my "by feel" ability that seems to plague so many.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

That's nonsense, no one can see the object ball contact point. Oh, wait a minute, it's you pj, sorry, of course YOU can. :thumbup:
 
CJ Wiley said:
...no one can see the object ball contact point.
Click to expand...
Lots of people can't, apparently. Fortunately or unfortunately, everybody's ability to visualize isn't the same.

Here's an interesting (but totally useless) fact: you can be accurate with contact point-to-contact point aiming even if you visualize the wrong contact points - you only have to be consistent in your errors.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Lots of people can't, apparently. Fortunately or unfortunately, everybody's ability to visualize isn't the same.

Here's an interesting (but totally useless) fact: you can be accurate with contact point-to-contact point aiming even if you visualize the wrong contact points - you only have to be consistent in your errors.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I see pros point at the contact point before shooting a combo often.
 
I've gone through exactly one(1) in 46 years. I quickly evolved from ghost ball to an opposite & equal fractional overlap of CB & OB that I am still using.

Although I am experimenting with CTE.

That being said, I may have used SEE before it was developed to help arrive at that reference line. I also have employed the lights reflection in the OB to help arrive at that point. I would say that I used the perception of the ghost ball along with the shadow on the table up to the light reflection in the OB all to derive at the fractional overlap.

I thought I was going to type out one simple sentence.

Regards &
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Lots of people can't, apparently. Fortunately or unfortunately, everybody's ability to visualize isn't the same.

Here's an interesting (but totally useless) fact: you can be accurate with contact point-to-contact point aiming even if you visualize the wrong contact points - you only have to be consistent in your errors.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

So in other words what you're saying is: you're not even playing by 'feel' as you keep stating. Once you've found the proper setup and eye alignment that's correct for you with contact points (which might actually be incorrect) by trial and error, the shot accuracy is ingrained through rote visualization consistent in your errors. Herein lies the magic words...VISUALIZATION and CONSISTENCY.

The same process as CTE that you continue to attempt to debunk as a "guessing game" each and every time through "feel".

It's clearly not. It's visualization and consistency of the alignment and setup. Maybe you should be more consistent with your thought process and comparisons?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Lots of people can't, apparently. Fortunately or unfortunately, everybody's ability to visualize isn't the same.

Here's an interesting (but totally useless) fact: you can be accurate with contact point-to-contact point aiming even if you visualize the wrong contact points - you only have to be consistent in your errors.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

if your errors are consistant, they are not errors, wouldnt you agree ?
no, thought not.:D
 
I'll fix that "fidget" once and for all.

sheffield6 said:
if your errors are consistant, they are not errors, wouldnt you agree ?
no, thought not.:D
Click to expand...

So I guess two wrongs now make a right? Wow, pj, is there any chance we can match up and play some "friendly" pool? I'll fix that "fidget" once and for all. :thumbup:
512WBcHo2lL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
 
CJ Wiley said:
So I guess two wrongs now make a right? Wow, pj, is there any chance we can match up and play some "friendly" pool? I'll fix that "fidget" once and for all. :thumbup:
512WBcHo2lL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
Click to expand...

pool shouldnt be this funny:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping
 
CJ:
pj, is there any chance we can match up and play some "friendly" pool?
Click to expand...
Is calling out nobodies on the Internet really the professional image you want for yourself? Don't forget, you're running a business here.

pj
chgo
 
I'd be obliged to say "tee it up," not "are you calling me out, Jack?"

Patrick Johnson said:
Is calling out nobodies on the Internet really the professional image you want for yourself? Don't forget, you're running a business here.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

In the "real world" asking someone to play a friendly game is a perfectly cordial and gentlemanly thing to do.

I know if Jack N. ask me to play a friendly round I'd be obliged to say "tee it up," not "are you calling me out, Jack?" :groucho:

jack_nicklaus_wisdom_2.jpg
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I initially line up with my stick pointing CB center to ghost ball center, but I've never actually aimed (got to the final alignment) using any method but contact point-to-contact point "feel" learned through practice and memorization (aided by conscious comparison of where I'm pointing my stick).

Fortunately, I've always found it easy to "see" the OB contact point and have never had the crisis of confidence in my "by feel" ability that seems to plague so many.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Crisis of confidence?

How about vision issues, optical illusions?

I had a very good road player give me lessons and on the One Pocket break he asked me what I was aiming at and I said WITH 100% CONFIDENCE that I was aiming to hit the head ball and the second ball with the standard one pocket break.

He said I wasn't aimed right and told me to shoot. Sure enough I clipped the head ball too much and sold out the break.

So we took a step back and he gave me his method of aiming which is like cheating. It's a stick method which extends the line to the rail. Then you simply shoot at the rail and because the object ball is in the way it has to go in. Works great.

Pat I don't understand why you continue to badmouth others as if you know what everyone else's experiences are. You say that that no single system is right for everyone but what you REALLY seem to mean is that in your view no one NEEDS any system other then point and shoot (with a little fidgeting to fine tune going by what you actually do).

Anyway, whatever, this type of dialog is apparently what makes you extremely happy and you appear to be addicted to it as many are. So I guess we will grow old together as long as you keep it up I will answer you and the dance continues.

For the OP - I started out with GB and then graduated to contact point with feel. I don't know if that could even be called graduating because there were a lot of shots I was super inconsistent with. But I would essentially sight the contact point and step in along a line that went to that.

In 2002 Hal Houle asked a friend of mine in Denver to have me come down and meet him. I did and my pool playing life changed forever and dramatically.

Hal filled my head with a lot of methods, too much for me to take in really and I was also only half-listening because I thought he was a nutcase and I was only humoring my friend and using the trip as an excuse to go to Denver and look for some action.

Well, there was no action in the early afternoon at Paradise Billiards and so I settled down to listen to this kook. One of the methods called the Quarters was simple enough for me to understand what I should do. It was uncomfortable at first but once I got it I started firing balls in from EVERYWHERE. And I mean EVERYWHERE!

Up the rail, thin cuts, reverse cuts, you name it I was making them slap the back of the pockets. I said how can this possibly work and Hal said it just does. He had explanations and reasons but I wasn't listening, too busy shooting.

Since then I pretty much stuck to that and the road player's line extension method until CTE. Cte was hard for me to grasp - again with the uncomfortable movement - and I still am not sure if I am doing it exactly right - but so far it's been the most consistent and reliable way for me to really KNOW that once I am down I am on the right shot line.

I bought the ProOne dvd, and the See System and played with both of them enough to know that they both work. But both of them require more practice than I am willing or able to give at the moment.

One thing I am certain of, if students get on these methods early and don't have other habits to break and aren't already indoctrinated on GB as the only "correct" way to aim then I think that they can get way better way faster since they are aiming right from the beginning.

I always say if aiming were easy then there wouldn't be so much discussion about it. As referenced earlier with Marvin Chin's work people have often written books which are all about aiming.

I personally enjoy having several methods to use to aim with. Making great shots in game situations, coming with it when it counts is the magic feeling that we all strive for. We don't play the game to miss and we don't like to feel unsure or worse to feel totally sure about the aiming line and yet be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Is calling out nobodies on the Internet really the professional image you want for yourself? Don't forget, you're running a business here.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

It worked for Joe Rogan,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a556pUcVgO0

I guess if nobodies can challenge pros then pros can challenge nobodies. Some people call it standing up for yourself, or as in Missouri, show me.

The thing about having detractors is that they can be good for your business. I have found that no matter what the point is, no matter what the issue is there will always be people on both sides.

If a pro selling his instructional material says to play this way and a nobody says to play that way then some folks will believe the pro and others will believe the nobody. But as long as the nobody continues to challenge then it allows the pro more opportunities to explain himself and if needed make a challenge to prove his assertions.

And that's often where the pendulum swings to more towards the side which is willing to stand up and prove their claims physically. It's not about crushing nobodies, more about giving the nobody a chance to prove their side in person with the idea that if they can't then it's just more on the side of the pro.

But I can see where a little bit might just be a desire to crush nobodies. After all it is a little brutal to constantly get barked at by little porch dogs who never get out of their yard. Sometimes just the thought of dishing out a good old-fashioned drubbing is satisfying.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
If you don't think "ingrained through rote visualization" is "playing by feel", we're speaking different languages.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Well then you're speaking different languages.

Rote practice is not feel. It's training specific actions to get repeatable results.

Of course all human action is done by "feel" in that such action is driven by the chemical and neural activity in the brain. Until such a time comes when the brain can be stimulated by remote control with enough precision as to make a person perform with the same precision as a computer controlled robotic arm all actions asked of a human will be done by "feel".

BUT

again

BUT

Feel is a spectrum that runs from instinctive ignorant reaction to practiced and precise trained reaction.

When a person reacts automatically with a trained reaction then they are at the farthest possible end of the spectrum away from blind ignorance.

When you look at a shot and you instantly know how to get down on teh shot line that isn't the fidgety, estimating type of feel. It is the direct action based on training type.

And that type does not feel like feel AT ALL. Not in the least. Put up a shot - the shooter bends down and shoots it in, no hesitation, no measuring, no guessing, no fidgeting, just bend down, shoot in.

When you get to that point you may say in an interview that you just feel it but the fact is that you don't feel it at all. It's just there.

What you will not accept is that your fidget method is not the same as something like SEE or CTE or CJ's 3 Part Pocket Method. Those are prescriptions that are designed especially to take feel down to a micro-level. You don't guess where the line is, not even for a fraction of a second. You measure where it is just as if you had a ruler. Once measured you simply get down and shoot.

Any feel comes into play after you are down and you decide to hit a touch thicker, a touch thinner, give a touch of juice, whatever you think that the shot needs besides simply using center ball with the right speed. That is what I would call "pocket sense". And I don't think that it's what you call pocket sense.

You will never ever learn or concede that aiming systems reduce feel to the point of being almost no feel at all. Fortunately, you're a self-admitted nobody in pool, which means that your position, however often stated will always have only a small group of adherents.
 
Well said!

JB Cases said:
It worked for Joe Rogan,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a556pUcVgO0

I guess if nobodies can challenge pros then pros can challenge nobodies. Some people call it standing up for yourself, or as in Missouri, show me.

The thing about having detractors is that they can be good for your business. I have found that no matter what the point is, no matter what the issue is there will always be people on both sides.

If a pro selling his instructional material says to play this way and a nobody says to play that way then some folks will believe the pro and others will believe the nobody. But as long as the nobody continues to challenge then it allows the pro more opportunities to explain himself and if needed make a challenge to prove his assertions.

And that's often where the pendulum swings to more towards the side which is willing to stand up and prove their claims physically. It's not about crushing nobodies, more about giving the nobody a chance to prove their side in person with the idea that if they can't then it's just more on the side of the pro.

But I can see where a little bit might just be a desire to crush nobodies. After all it is a little brutal to constantly get barked at by little porch dogs who never get out of their yard. Sometimes just the thought of dishing out a good old-fashioned drubbing is satisfying.
Click to expand...

Well said! :yeah: Professional, contructive arguments and discussions are what encourage ideas evolve. When I started posting on this forum I knew TOI was effective and was my "secret advantage" I used to win. I didn't understand "Touch OF Inside" at the level I do now, but after over 1000 posts on the subject I can teach it in a very reasonable period of time. It only works because the cue ball is perfectly round and the table is two perfect squares creating perfect triangles to the pockets. The human mind and perfect, geometric figures seem to align in a super natural way (it's really intriguing).

The TOI Video I'm doing is over 10 hours of explanation and demonstration, post produced and edited down to about 70 minutes. This is my greatest contribution to the pool world and I'm really looking forward to releasing it. I want to thank everyone on azbilliards for helping me "fine tune" and perfect the system though your questions and comments. 'The Game is the Teacher'
 
Last edited:
CJ Wiley said:
In the "real world" asking someone to play a friendly game is a perfectly cordial and gentlemanly thing to do.
Click to expand...
So you just wanna get together, have a beer or two and shoot some pool for the pure pleasure of my company? Cool. Next time you're in Chicago, OK? I'll be looking for your PM.

Your new hangin' bud,

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top