I Stopped With All the Nonsene

[Brookeland Bill]

I just realized today that attempting
to make shots using every system at one time or another is ludicrous. I just went back and played extinctivly. See th object ball. See the pocket subconsciously aim and shoot. All of that so called systems are too mechani. They do give you room to improvise. You have to rely on what looks and feels good.

 

[BC21]

I just realized today that attempting
to make shots using every system at one time or another is ludicrous. I just went back and played extinctivly. See th object ball. See the pocket subconsciously aim and shoot. All of that so called systems are too mechani. They do give you room to improvise. You have to rely on what looks and feels good.

It's my belief that that should be the end result of aiming systems. They allow various ways to look at shots, but after a while it all becomes embedded/ingrained into the subconscious, along with everything else we know about aiming.

Eventually, with enough successful repetition, all that's needed is to simply look at the shot and shoot it, regardless of whatever aiming methods or systems we utilized. At a certain point, aiming should begin to feel natural, instinctual, though it's actually a developed "instinct".

 

[Sheldon]

Taking off the training wheels!

 

[JoeyInCali]

Mind's Eye ? Dunt exist

 

[boogieman]

I just realized today that attempting
to make shots using every system at one time or another is ludicrous. I just went back and played extinctivly. See th object ball. See the pocket subconsciously aim and shoot. All of that so called systems are too mechani. They do give you room to improvise. You have to rely on what looks and feels good.

Yup.

Visualizing the ball going into the pocket before you shoot it is quite strong too. If you have a good imagination it's like your shot is an instant replay of what you just saw happening.

I've honestly gave up on aiming systems. Sure, they work, but once you know you know. Focusing on systems can hinder your game. We only have so much mental power and chipping away at it with math and such isn't a good use of that in my opinion.

 

[Oikawa]

Good stuff, agreed with others.

I'm at a point in my game where if I'm alone on a practice table I barely miss any routine balls potting wise and position play feels very natural too, if I played at that exact level in tournaments I'd be a 650 fargo at least, 600 being the actual level I perform at in tournaments. And the thing is, I spend absolutely 0 conscious effort thinking about aiming. Choose the shot, stand behind the line that feels correct (CB/OB overlap), step down and align cue, shoot the shot, goes in.

99% of my issues right now are about managing the multitude of issues that arise under pressure. Muscles feel tense, stroke timing is difficult, you lose the confidence, you get too self-conscious, it's harder to stay still, all sorts of stuff. I'm clearly not a "natural" at managing pressure, but I know it can be worked on, directly by managing my mental state under pressure, but more importantly indirectly from improving my fundamentals and stroke.

The point of my rambling is that aiming isn't the part of the game that skyrockets your game, it's the other stuff. I'm not the only 600 fargo who feels like this. I'd bet most 600-700 fargos would agree that their aiming is instinctual and on a good day they feel like they can pot almost any shot with no effort.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Yes, the goal is instinctual aim for most, if not all, shots. Aiming systems are not nonsense, however, and many players benefit from them, including professionals when they face particularly difficult shots.

 

[Low500]

I just realized today that attempting
to make shots using every system at one time or another is ludicrous. I just went back and played extinctivly. See th object ball. See the pocket subconsciously aim and shoot. All of that so called systems are too mechani. They do give you room to improvise. You have to rely on what looks and feels good.

Then you will forever remain shackled to the chains of mediocrity.
Enjoy your poverty.

 

[Dan White]

Then you will forever remain shackled to the chains of mediocrity.
Enjoy your poverty.

Wow! Low is back! I know you hate me but I always admired your life story, if not your exploits on AZ. Glad to see you are still kicking.

 

[bbb]

Then you will forever remain shackled to the chains of mediocrity.
Enjoy your poverty.

welcome back ....

 

[JoeyInCali]

Yes, the goal is instinctual aim for most, if not all, shots. Aiming systems are not nonsense, however, and many players benefit from them, including professionals when they face particularly difficult shots.

They line up.the contact point and hit it.
No science or system behind it.
But, most shots , they've already memorized.

 

[Dan White]

They line up.the contact point and hit it.
No science or system behind it.
But, most shots , they've already memorized.

Yes, the goal is instinctual aim for most, if not all, shots. Aiming systems are not nonsense, however, and many players benefit from them, including professionals when they face particularly difficult shots.

What's an example of a shot where a professional would need to employ an aiming system?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

They line up.the contact point and hit it.
No science or system behind it.
But, most shots , they've already memorized.

What's an example of a shot where a professional would need to employ an aiming system?

Three examples should suffice to illustrate the use of systems when a system is defined as something beyond instinctual aim:

Professional players often walk behind the object ball on a challenging cut to mark the OB point of contact.

They also use systems for (some) banks and kicks to determine the points of contact with the rails.

Additionally, some players use the ferrule edge or other methods for offset and English adjustments.

 

[Dan White]

Three examples should suffice to illustrate the use of systems when a system is defined as something beyond instinctual aim:

Professional players often walk behind the object ball on a challenging cut to mark the OB point of contact.

IMO that's not a system.

They also use systems for (some) banks and kicks to determine the points of contact with the rails.

Yes, but that's not really what we were talking about when we say "aiming." I was going to make that qualification but I didn't think I needed to.

Additionally, some players use the ferrule edge or other methods for offset and English adjustments.

...which has to be confirmed by "does it look right."

I think you are being very generous with your definition of "system." If you advertised that you taught a system to pocket balls and then it ended up being "stand behind the ob and line it up to the pocket" somebody is going to want a refund.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

IMO that's not a system.

Yes, but that's not really what we were talking about when we say "aiming." I was going to make that qualification but I didn't think I needed to.

...which has to be confirmed by "does it look right."

I think you are being very generous with your definition of "system." If you advertised that you taught a system to pocket balls and then it ended up being "stand behind the ob and line it up to the pocket" somebody is going to want a refund.

I'm not looking to argue about semantics. How about this instead? I recently spent hours with a pro friend, Tommy Kennedy, including discussing aiming systems, particularly those he uses for making challenging cuts that are difficult to aim by instinct.

 

[Dan White]

I'm not looking to argue about semantics. How about this instead? I recently spent hours with a pro friend, Tommy Kennedy, including discussing aiming systems, particularly those he uses for making challenging cuts that are difficult to aim by instinct.

I think standing behind the ob to pocket line to sight a shot is part of ghost ball, if you want to call that a system.

I think "systems" like edge of ferrule are really pre shot routines that provide consistency. However, that edge of ferrule has to be linked to a particular shot angle that is learned by HAMB. So is that a system for aiming? I think it is a technique to provide some references for the HAMB system.

No matter what "system" you use the shot still has to look right (except Poolology), and that can only be learned by HAMB.

 

[Sheldon]

No system will ever be accurate enough to rely on. They can only get you in the ballpark. Your eyes and your cue are always far enough apart that no method of alignment will be perfect. Add deflection, slight masse, cling, etc. and it's even more unreliable. Seeing and knowing the shot will always be the most accurate.

 

[JoeyInCali]

No system will ever be accurate enough to rely on. They can only get you in the ballpark. Your eyes and your cue are always far enough apart that no method of alignment will be perfect. Add deflection, slight masse, cling, etc. and it's even more unreliable. Seeing and knowing the shot will always be the most accurate.

Niels Feijen talks about this in his latest video.
Once English is introduced, different strokes and cue will have to be factored in.
I'll post the portion of the video later.

 

[JoeyInCali]

 

[BC21]

Niels is great. But it's funny when he says he doesn't "believe" in aiming systems, or that all aiming systems are "overrated".

He describes how he only uses ghostball, and how the rest is just "feel and do". In other words, practice and experience with ghostball aiming has helped him develop the ability to just see the shots, to just feel and do. It's the old HAMB mentality, where the end result relies on many hours of trial and error, aka rote learning, and that is actually the end result of any aiming method or system.

It doesn't matter if you're using ghostball, contact points, fractional overlaps, or CTE pro1. The more time you spend doing it, the more you begin to just see the shots, to just "feel and do", as Niels says.

What he doesn't realize is that his mind has pieced together more than just ghostball locations. Ghostballs are invisible, imaginary. What the eyes are looking at is the ob. The mind estimates ghostball location based on what the eyes can actually see.

Ghostball users believe they are aiming at an imaginary ghostball location, but what they're really doing is aiming a certain distance away from center ob, based on the width of the ob and their best guess or estimation at where the imaginary ghostball should be. And all the while the mind is referencing the width of the ob, estimating (bases on this solid visual reference) the cb/ob overlap needed to pocket the ball.

Poolology takes advantage of this concept by ignorning invisible ghostball locations, and instead directs the player to focus directly on the overlap needed to pocket the ball. Afterall, that's really what's happening in the mind, indirectly, when players believe they are looking at ghostballs.