txplshrk said:
I think you might need to explain it in greater detail. Do you mean there are 6 hit points on the OB that will cause it to go to the pocket assuming overlaps are not considered?
Is an aiming system accurate?
- Thread starter pete lafond
- Start date
I think you might need to explain it in greater detail. Do you mean there are 6 hit points on the OB that will cause it to go to the pocket assuming overlaps are not considered?
Overlaps
Well like I said you don't have to believe there are only 6 points of contact on an OB. I just know there are the only 6 points that you need to consern yourself with.
As far as overlaps what are you talking about? I am not sure I understand what your asking.
Well like I said you don't have to believe there are only 6 points of contact on an OB. I just know there are the only 6 points that you need to consern yourself with.
As far as overlaps what are you talking about? I am not sure I understand what your asking.
Last edited:
txplshrk said:
This is why I need a more detailed explaination. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Are you saying that there are only 6 possible points to hit the OB to pocket it?
Age, type, wear and cleanliness of the cloth and the dirty clean or polished state of the balls are the biggest factors in how the table plays, and they are affected drastically by humidity, the dirtier the more dramatic the effect.pete lafond said:
Practicing on old cloth and then playing in pro tournaments with brand new equipment used to drive me crazy. That's why and how I came up with the system I use now and described in another thread. I finally realized it's the lack of curve on the new cloth that is so confusing and hard to deal with. My aiming system does not vary from one shot to the next or from one cloth/table to the next. The stroke on one table for one shot may need to be 5 times as hard on a different table to deliver the cueball without curve, so you may need to choose a different type of shot. The good thing is that the more sticky it is, the more you can use english to move the ball, so instead of powering through the same shot, you can use a different shot with far less speed and spin the cueball around the table.
My aiming is for the point the stick goes to in relation to the ghost ball. You account for throw by placement of the ghost ball. The aim is to get the cueball to that point. It's still and always will be impossible to shoot the cueball at the contact point of the object ball and make it unless it's straight in. So to me, that's the one place no one should be looking.
You are right, no aiming system can adjust to those differing conditions. My stroke and shot selection, and placement behind the cueball are adjusted. For side english on newer cloth I'll be more behind the cueball (fewer tips), older cloth less behind (more tips), but still aiming to the same spot downtable. The stroke may vary considerably, but the deflection and aim are as close to the same as possible. The aim and stroke are actually across the line of the cueball, crossing more on new cloth, less on old.
I have all 4" pockets (sides included), and this system is deadly accurate once I play into it and simplify to speed and direction of the cuestick. It still takes me awhile to stop looking at the object ball and rely on my aim and stroke, but once you fully commit to it, you can tell when your stroke was bad (not hard or soft or long enough) or your aim was incorrect for the english used and quickly adjust.
So I don't use my system to find the point on the object ball, I use it to help find the correct stroke much quicker for that particular table. Then I keep using it constantly because it's the only way I want to play and makes the game simpler and easier.
unknownpro
APA7 said:S.A.M. IS A RIPOFF OF HAL HOULE'S SYSTEMS THAT HE TAUGHT RANDY G. IT'S UNETHICAL NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HAL. WE SHOULD GIVE CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE.
Brian
Dude, I never said it wasn't Hal Houle's system. I said I learned it from randyg. Don't tell me I am unethical by not acknowleging Hal. I never met Hal, and I didn't learn it from Hal. Sorry if I stepped on Hal's toes, but obviously randyg got permission from Hal to teach it. I simply stated that I learned it from randyg at his pool school. So don't get so bent out of shape. It is an awesome system. I just simply told the guys in here that it is a system that works. If you want to get mad at randyg, then so be it, but I am greatful that I learned it up there cause it is a great system.
I have said this before but I believe that it's worth mentioning again..... If you want to improve your aim do this practice routine: Scatter all 15 balls out on the table keeping them at least 4" from the rails, place the cue anywhere on the table, then shoot them all in without hitting a rail.
This will force you to put all of your concentration on the cue ball position. Like magic, your shots go EXACTLY where you planned. It's freaky....
This will force you to put all of your concentration on the cue ball position. Like magic, your shots go EXACTLY where you planned. It's freaky....
If these are your facts, then you aren't going to get many believers in anything else you say.txplshrk said:
The delivery of your belief can either draw people in or push them away. Right now, you're pushing them away.
For everyone else, the S.A.M. method of aiming is the Pool School (Cuetech Pool School's) version of the fractional aiming methods that have been around for a long time. Those instructors have been very open with the fact that it was their discussions with Hal Houle and his various relational aiming systems that led them (Pool School) to develop what they now have incorporated in their teaching. What Hal teaches, however, are systems well beyond what S.A.M. teaches and may not necessarily resemble S.A.M.
That being said, these instructors represent every pool player who has scoffed at the idea of aiming systems, and relational aiming systems in specific. Yet, even after decades of teaching, they have been open to the non-standard methods, learned from them, and now embrace them. Others should take that for whatever it's worth.
Fred
pete lafond said:
Here's my view on aiming systems.
My wife used to work as a hospital nurse giving out medications. They had to get the right medications in the right doses from the pharmacy and administer them at the right time to the right patients. There were a number of controls in place designed to insure they did it right.
Occasionally, some old lady would say, "I don't usually get a red pill."
Even though the patient's oversight isn't part of the official approach to getting it right, a nurse would be a fool not to heed this warning and double check.
If one of these aiming systems suggests doing something notably different than the aim based on your normal approach, then consider that a rogue red pill and reevaluate, imo.
mike page
fargo
mikepage said:
I can't argue with that lol.... I think that these aiming "systems" are hokey as Hell. What ya'll need to work on is feeling the game and trusting your aim. Feel the game and trust your aim. Feel the game and trust your aim. Feel the game and trust your aim. ...
There, now you got it. I take check, paypal or money order....
Adding to what Colin said about Aiming and Alingment.
They are not the same thing no. but you can not be consistant unless you have both.
How do you know your "Aim" is correct unless your "Aligned" correctly. And how do you know your "Alingment" is correct unless your "Aim" is correct?
Everyone is different, everyones body is different so how can your stance be the same. (It can't and won't) ... Everyone can however have a consistent and repeatable stance that promotes good cue alignment for thier body type that will lead to better "Aim".
Then again....now that I just came back from the eye doctor....How do you know what your looking at is really where the object is????
They are not the same thing no. but you can not be consistant unless you have both.
How do you know your "Aim" is correct unless your "Aligned" correctly. And how do you know your "Alingment" is correct unless your "Aim" is correct?
Everyone is different, everyones body is different so how can your stance be the same. (It can't and won't) ... Everyone can however have a consistent and repeatable stance that promotes good cue alignment for thier body type that will lead to better "Aim".
Then again....now that I just came back from the eye doctor....How do you know what your looking at is really where the object is????
An earlier poster was correct in that it seems there are different understanding of the terms. I use the term stance to explain how I stand/address the table, where as alignment is bringing head and body into alignment to the shot line, which I do before I go down into my stance.
You can stand on one foot and be aligned, but not natural. Everyone may have a little different stance, but you must be aligned with the direction in which you are going to shoot. Elsewise, as the last poster suggested, you are going to be seeing the ball incorrectly.
Joe Tucker, I think, goes over it in one of his books/DVDs. Basically your eyes trick you into thinking your hitting the center of the cue ball, and your applying english instead. We've all done it at one time or another. Realignment or adaptation is required. Interesting article by Joe.
You can stand on one foot and be aligned, but not natural. Everyone may have a little different stance, but you must be aligned with the direction in which you are going to shoot. Elsewise, as the last poster suggested, you are going to be seeing the ball incorrectly.
Joe Tucker, I think, goes over it in one of his books/DVDs. Basically your eyes trick you into thinking your hitting the center of the cue ball, and your applying english instead. We've all done it at one time or another. Realignment or adaptation is required. Interesting article by Joe.
Pics
Ok, I sent pics to all the people that were interested in this aiming method. If you guys on here don't care about S.A.M. or don't like S.A.M. then that is cool. I was just simply sharing information, or sharing the wealth as some people call it.
Just because you don't believe in an aiming system doesn't mean you have to bash someone else's. There are many aiming systems out there that I don't agree with, but some people love them.
I like this aiming system because it is easy to use, and it works!! If you don't think it works it is because your not doing it correctly, but I guess that could be said about most aiming systems.
Anyway, if you all change your mind and want the pics, and to learn more about S.A.M., then all you have to do is ask me.
Ok, I sent pics to all the people that were interested in this aiming method. If you guys on here don't care about S.A.M. or don't like S.A.M. then that is cool. I was just simply sharing information, or sharing the wealth as some people call it.
Just because you don't believe in an aiming system doesn't mean you have to bash someone else's. There are many aiming systems out there that I don't agree with, but some people love them.
I like this aiming system because it is easy to use, and it works!! If you don't think it works it is because your not doing it correctly, but I guess that could be said about most aiming systems.
Anyway, if you all change your mind and want the pics, and to learn more about S.A.M., then all you have to do is ask me.