Is "Feel" Essential for Successful Aiming?
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
....P.J. ....cute reply.
Thousands of great players developed excellent aiming skills the old-school way - countless hours on the table. There's plenty enough proof out there that HAMB works. I mean, use any traditional aiming method (ghostball, contact points, fractions) for a long enough period and you get very good at it. Hell, I've been playing pool for over 36 years, playing pretty sporty also, and I never even heard of "aiming systems" until I started reading posts on AZ Billiards just a few years ago.
I looked into a few of these systems and decided they were not that great, no better or more efficient than the way I learned, which was probably ghostball or whatever it is that just allows me to know how to aim well today.
Anyway, I wanted to teach my daughters how to play pool back then, so I was looking into aiming systems. I wanted a more efficient way of teaching someone how to aim, something with less guesswork than ghostball or contact points or traditional fractional aiming or any of the aiming systems I had been looking into. So I came up with Poolology, which is a fractional aiming system that doesn't rely on guesswork or hamb.
The thing about Poolology is that it's really a training system designed to help players develop a good eye for recognizing shots without having to hit a million balls. And it works. I might be an old-school player who learned to aim through trial and error, experience/hamb, but I truly believe there are better ways of developing skills than traditional old-school ways. Just because hamb works doesn't mean it's the best and most effective way to learn.
Stan has never said anything indicating that feel when applying sidespin is used and neither have I. What I do say is that the aiming systems that work give the shooter a reliable baseline. And from that baseline the application of spin becomes way easier in my experience.
When you truly know that a shot line is correct. And by that I mean you know that if you stroke straight with no side spin then deciding how much to adjust for side spin or pivot if using backhand english becomes routine. You definitely develop a very good sense for how much is too much
Furthermore, when you have a true no-imagination shot line then you also learn to see the true tangent line and it gives you much more precision when calculating the combined effects of spin and friction, spin induced throw and contact induced throw.
So it isn't like adding a tip of spin negates the system and makes the aiming process all feel. Quite the opposite, it makes the aiming process very very very deliberate even with the choice to use sidespin.
I agree that adding spin doesn't negate the primary aiming system/process. However, developing a good feel for spin and speed is the only way to consistently know how much to adjust or tweak the aim. And that's a skill that must be developed through experience, regardless of whatever aiming method a player prefers.
Last edited:
Yes you can learn through the school of experience.
However that doesn't mean that there aren't methods that work extremely well that a player could benefit from.
I know you have seen high level players, especially the Filipinos, standing around a table trading shots and knowledge.
That knowledge exchange means that for some of the people participation that the learning curve is shortened. Sometimes dramatically. Who knows what information will be a catalyst to allow a player to reach the next level?
The table doesn't lie to you. That's true regardless of skill level. The balls are fully inert and don't move until the player moves them. So assuming that the equipment is adequate it is the player who chooses the aim, speed and spin and who then must execute those choices correctly to achieve the desired result.
I liken this to edge burnishing on leather goods. There are a lot of ways to dress up the raw edge of a piece of leather. If I give a task to a novice leather worker to burnish the edge in one hour and a picture of the finished edge then it is highly unlikely that they will achieve it through trial and error with no other knowledge given to them.
If however I give them a step by step guide by Bob Park and provide the right tools and dressing compound then it is very likely that they will achieve a respectable result in that hour. They benefit from the trial and error and systematic development that Bob and many other leather workers went through to figure out the best practice.
Aiming systems aren't something that people invented from nothing. They are process that have been discovered to work and refined over time.
Ghost ball is an aiming system. Just a low level one but one which gives the user some sort of instructive step to guide their eyes to a specific place which in turn forces their body into a limited space in order to address the cueball comfortably. As beginners use ghost ball they start to build a feel for when they are off or they learn to manipulate, most often subconsciously, the cueball with speed and spin to throw the object ball towards the pocket. This is in my opinion the genesis of "body english".
Those players who go through brute force trial and error combined with excellent spatial awareness are the ones who build the library of shots and their physical skills seemingly rapidly until they plateau for any number of reasons.
So really anything that is discovered and presented should be explored and tried. As Bruce Lee said, try everything and keep what works.
My experience in this area has shown me that teaching aiming systems leads to immediate improvement in shot making for the student. There must be some benefit for a human to be placed on the correct shot line. At the very least their brain is ingesting information about what the correct shot line looks and feels like.
Lastly, for those of us with day jobs pool will never be more than a hobby. All of our competitive pursuits in pool are literally just to have an enjoyable distraction. We make up the billiard industry and are the reason that there is a sport at all.
For the times you beat Strickland there are thousands more who count it as a highlight in their lives just to have been able to play him once or watch him live once. Exploring aiming systems as a means to improve our performance and thus our enjoyment of this sport isn't a bad thing in any way.
It should be encouraged. Anything that gets people into the pool rooms and on the tables works to keep our sport alive and flourishing.
The feeling I get when I see a player's eyes light up in wonder when they start making shots consistently is amazing. And I have seen it hundreds of times since that day I met Hal Houle at Paradise Billiards. The very next night I was in Loveland and showing it to apa4s and 5s and their delight just inspired me to continue exploring.
I am building a pool academy of sorts in my pool room, Chesters in OKC. You probably played there during your road trips back in the day.
My goal is to make it into a place that develops players and gives them the freedom to explore all techniques without fear of ridicule. To be able to try things and keep what works for them and discard what doesn't.
And to have them be fully honest with themselves about where they are and why they aren't where they want to be. I want every player who walks out of Chesters to know more about our wonderful sport than when they walked in. That's my goal and is the type of environment I wished that I had available when I was 17 and getting engaged in improving.
Right. So having a reliable no-spin baseline is a better way to develop that feel for spin in my opinion.
And fwiw I am not convinced that there isn't a way to systematically calculate for spin. It's all just variables and the more that a person is aware of the variables the more chance to correctly adjust for them in my opinion.
I mean I could see a possibility of developing a chart that is reliably accurate for combinations of speed and spin and conditions. We each have that chart in our minds to some degree. When we are instructing and we tell the student to use one tip of spin at medium speed we do so because we have an expectation of what that will produce. And knowing that we can and do apply that knowledge in shot situations that we haven't practiced to give ourselves a better chance than blindly guessing.
What we don't typically do is hard code that knowledge into a physical chart whereby the inexperienced user of the chart can use it as needed.
Although some have done so in various ways. Buddy Hall created the clock system whereby he equated specific tips of offset to specify diamonds of position. Others have codified x-amount of speed with x-amounts of travel.
I don't think that anyone has scientifically tested these assertions but I can say confidently that just having something is likely to be better than just guessing.
All technique exists to train the mind and body. If someone somewhere devised/discovered a method that they think works to build skill then it is highly likely that they did so with the best of intentions. This is why I bristle so much at the people who go out of their way to mock systematic approaches to skill building.
I agree with a lot of this, but not the chart for speed and spin. Cue shaft deflection, tip size and shape, muscle memory, sense of speed, cue delivery, etc.... These are subjective variables that make it nearly impossible for a one-size-fits-all solution to aiming with spin.
Yes, "references", not solutions (unless the solution happens to be a system reference alignment).
pj
chgo
And that's a very common occurrence, much more common than most people think.
Really? Take fractional aiming, for instance - how many system alignments do you suppose it defines exactly?
pj
chgo
Thanks to JB's post his words joggled my old brain.
Now I remember my first and only pool lesson, Sailor of Racine.
Took a lesson right before I played Varner in the midwest collegiate finals at the IU bowling alley 69? or 68.
Red/orange cloth on Gold Crowns with no overhead table lights right next to the lanes.
Now I remember my first and only pool lesson, Sailor of Racine.
Took a lesson right before I played Varner in the midwest collegiate finals at the IU bowling alley 69? or 68.
Red/orange cloth on Gold Crowns with no overhead table lights right next to the lanes.
Are they subjective though?
Let's take deflection. According to meucci and predator and Bob Jewett and Dr Dave this is a measurable quantity. Dave provides handy printable templates to test the amount of deflection and squirt and a method for doing so.
I mean I agree that conditions and variables all play a role and that there is unlikely to be a formula that accounts for all of the identified variables.
But one of Pat Johnson's contentions is that tip offset at consistent speed determines the path pretty much the same regardless of the equipment used when that equipment is within standard parameters.
I think that he proposed a way to test that and that Dave did test it and found it to be mostly true. I will absolutely accept correction on this as I am relying on memory for this claim.
But if true then we have an objective criteria to use. Two tips left at x-speed produces a consistent y-result within b-average then that means that we have an objectively reliable baseline to go off of.
The most important information I get from Dr Dave's work is that physics works exactly as predicted on the pool table.
Feel players don't necessarily understand the physics involved but they know what happens when they do things a certain way. Knowing the physics due to seeing then explained in well done videos with repeatable results is a way to objectively approach pool and shortens the learning curve considerably in my opinion.
It trains the mind to approach a shot from a position of knowledge versus experience. What do I mean by this?
Ok something I use a lot is the 45 degree method for center table paths. Basically when a ball come into the rail at about 45 degrees then it follows a path through the center of the table. This is huge to avoid scratching and potentially blocking balls. I watched a kid in my room practicing position off two rails and his cueball was all over the place, super inconsistent.
I pulled up Dave's center table paths video and taught the kid the concept and within ten minutes he was getting the desired position and more than that he was able to use it for other shots immediately and get the desired position. No guessing or trial and error or developing "feel". Just a literal geometry-based method that serves as a reliable way to know what path the cueball will take. And beyond that having this baseline path allows him to know how to adjust to avoid the center of the table when needed.
That's a huge improvement in his game inside of ten minutes that is 100% because of an objective proven method. A method he can deliberately and consciously apply until his mind just sees it with no need to measure the angle into the rail.
So honestly I do think that there has to be a way to identify and account for variables objectively so that just about any shot faced becomes an if/then exercise.
I also think that most people if asked would prefer to be feel players who just see it and know the right move without a system or any overt physical measuring and figuring.
My point is that by using objective methods they can dramatically shorten the distance between knowing nothing and looking like they were born on a pool table. But a lot of people like to denigrate this approach and say if you don't learn by pure trial and error practice without a systematic approach then you will never really play great and fluid. I fully disagree with those people and I hope over the next few years to be able to prove my hypothesis with clear evidence.
It defines as many as your mind can visually differentiate.
Traditional fractional aiming defines 5 alignments (full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8). And the player must decide (based on experience) which alignment looks best for the shot. Then they have to decide (based on experience) how much thinner or thicker to aim the shot based on that nearest alignment reference.
The Poolology fractional system defines 8 alignments. But experience isn't needed. The system provides the aiming solution for shots between about 60° to straight in (using a rolling cb). Most shots happen to fall in this range. And it's pretty remarkable how often a shot happens to fall directly on one of those 8th reference alignments. For shots where the system shows the alignment to be in-between two 8ths, that isn't too difficult to navigate.
I can easily pinpoint the nearest 8th of a ball aim line for just about any shot using the system. From there it's not difficult to fine tune to the nearest 1/16 (thinner or thicker) by using quarters of my shaft and referencing that nearest 8th aim line, similar to how SVB does on certain shots.
But I'm old school, meaning I didn't learn through this straightforward fractional method. Still, being able to fine-tune thinner or thicker than 16ths is just a matter of table time/experience, no different than fine-tuning ghostball or contact point estimates.
Well, when I can show someone a series of steps and their pocketing goes up immediately I conclude that it is the system they are now deliberately and consciously applying.
It's super simple. Give a person a series of shots to make and record the results. Teach them an aiming system and record the results.
If the only difference is the application of the system then it's a fair conclusion that the aiming system is the reason that their pocketing percentage went up.
You can do the same experiment and after the initial run through of the shots you tell them to just focus extra hard and record those results.
You want to say that the deliberate act of using a system increases focus on the act of aiming and allows the subconscious time to adjust to the correct shot line that the mind magically sees correctly.
I don't agree that the mind automatically sees the right shot line. I think some people do see it better than others just like some people have more dexterity than others. But in that case it's likely that the person with better visual acuity can benefit even more from an aiming system than one who struggles to find the shot line.
Just like a jump cue increases the range of possible shots for everyone but a pro with a jump cue is going to always be better than me with a jump cue.
So a good aiming system paired with the "pool sense" of a pro is going to benefit to them more because they will bring superior mechanics to the table and a superior knowledge of position play and pattern selection.
It's not about belief. It is about results. I give a task and if the player approaches it once with pure feel and the second time with a properly applied system and does significantly better then those results are not based on "belief" but are instead based on the application of specific steps that produce specific results.
I don't make "tough" shots because I believe in the aiming system and that allows my subconscious to overcome aiming wrong. I trust the aiming system because I have verified the effectiveness and know it leads me to the correct shot line.
And I verify this by teaching it to others and recording the performace difference between aiming by feel and aiming objectively.
I verify this by deliberately choosing the incorrect visual reference points and watching the result send the object ball to the same spot every time. That's the beauty of an objective aiming method, one can quickly cycle through the aiming "keys" and select the one most likely to be correct and with practice that cycling through is replaced with an instantly correct key being chosen.
This happens in a fraction of a second and appears completely natural and flowing to the spectators. So much so that it can seem like the shooter is just naturally gifted.
I know a local pro, 750 speed player that is extremely reluctant to divulge how he aims. But he did reveal that he uses the shadow method often. 99% of the people who know him would likely bet high that he is just a natural talent who uses no kind of system to aim. This is because he doesn't talk about it, doesn't teach it, and doesn't do anything that looks robotic or systematic when looking at a shot.
Now you will say of course that there is no humanly possible way to verify whether he is using any system or not. And you would be 100% correct in his case. There is no way to see inside his brain and know what his eyes are doing and what thoughts he is having as he prepares to go into shooting position.
So while he could be lying for some reason I chose to bribe him and learn the method he uses and see what results I get from applying it as taught. And if I see an improvement in my ability to get to the shot line then I can conclude that the method, correctly, deliberately and consciously applied works.
Whether it works because it somehow turns on some ability to pick the right shot line subconsciously that for whatever reason wasn't turned on prior to learning the system is really not relevant.
The important criteria is the results. Can I succeed more often and enjoy playing more when I use the system? If yes then keep using it and have more fun and play more often.
Of course feel is always present. Pool is a tactile sport with pretty high precision requirements. Objective aiming directs feel to where it is most needed in my opinion and that is in the actual delivery of the cue tip to the cue ball.
This is the best and most honest post I've seen when referring to CTE. If Stan had said this 20yrs ago, the whole flame war would've died right then. This is what it all boils down to! It doesn't matter what you or anyone else believes or thinks about how the system works. All that matters is whether or not a player can use it and get better and have more fun playing pool. If they can't, dump it and find something that works better. It's up to the player to find what works best for him or her.
The flame wars started at RSB/ASB and continued to AZB long before Stan showed up. I said this EXACT thing as did many others back then. Nothing has changed in the intervening 24 years in regard to the flamers and haters. I also didn't make this post in reference to CTE. I made it in reference to objective aiming systems and objective knowledge in general. I am, if nothing else, remarkably consistent on this subject.
The war will never end because the "feel" proponents, or "anti Stan" opponents, same thing really, will always claim there is a degree of feel involved in pocketing all shots. regardless of the aiming method used. They know no one can possibly prove them entirely wrong, even though they can never prove they are entirely right, well other than the fact that Patrick said so.