Is "Feel" Essential for Successful Aiming?

[Renegade_56]

New/alternate title for the thread:

View attachment 670399

For the sake of argument, can you describe a step by step process for "feeling" a given shot?

And, suppose a person pays no particular interest or attention to either a "ghost ball center position", or, "a contact point" on a ball, then what are they feeling?

 

[Renegade_56]

As far as knowing that your body and cue are lined up correctly for a given shot, I agree. That is definitely something that involves feel.

But, what says that feel has any affect on the outcome of a shot when you consider the fact that most halfway serious players "feel" they are gonna make most shots before actually stroking, whether they make it or not. I guess feel can help you miss too.

 

[BC21]

But, what says that feel has any affect on the outcome of a shot when you consider the fact that most halfway serious players "feel" they are gonna make most shots before actually stroking, whether they make it or not. I guess feel can help you miss too.

Absolutely.

You can feel whatever you feel, but that's no guarantee you're correct. We've all missed shots that we felt 100% sure we were going to make. And we sometimes make shots that we don't feel like we're going to make, but we shoot anyway.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

For the sake of argument, can you describe a step by step process for "feeling" a given shot?

Recognizing the correct alignment from memory of previous successes.

And, suppose a person pays no particular interest or attention to either a "ghost ball center position", or, "a contact point" on a ball, then what are they feeling?

Sorry, your question doesn't make sense to me. Feel is independent of your aiming method, and you always feel the same thing: whether or not an alignment looks right.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Well, in theory a robot could be programmed by relatively simple rules (see Virtual Pool) and play jam up.

Yep, VP demonstrates that pretty clearly alright. It has the advantage of not relying on camera visuals, but I suppose that's solvable. Then the only thing holding up the unvirtual version is a good reason to spend the money.

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Then the only thing holding up the unvirtual version is a good reason to spend the money.

The costs wouldn't be too great if you went with the graduate student slave labor option.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The costs wouldn't be too great if you went with the graduate student slave labor option.

And a Defense Department research grant.

pj
chgo

 

[Zerksies]

New/alternate title for the thread:

View attachment 670399

I think I need to work on throwing balls. Right now it’s still feel.

 

[BC21]

Recognizing the correct alignment from memory of previous successes.

That's a good definition of "feel", when it comes to feeling that you're body is aligned properly for the shot. That type of feel is definitely used with every aiming system or method. It's the "this feels right" part of alignment. The other type of feel ("this looks right") applies to aiming methods that require trial and error (hamb) to learn how to aim, to build a solid memory for shot recognition.

With Poolology, feel or memory recognition is not required for determining the correct aim line or aim point to pocket a ball (for shots between straight-in and about 38° with no side spin or stun), but feel is definitely required when it comes to aligning your body and stroke to the known aim line to play the shot.

The numbers define the aiming reference from a standing position - no feel involved. Body alignment involves addressing the cb and ensuring that everything is lined up for the shot, and that requires feel, meaning you either do or don't feel like you're lined up correctly (in accordance with a known aim line or aim point on the ob).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

With Poolology, feel or memory recognition is not required for determining the correct aim line or aim point to pocket a ball (for shots between straight-in and about 38° with no side spin or stun)

Given that up to 50 or more discrete aim lines are needed to make all shots on the table (25 for a spot shot into a 4.5" pocket), how does Poolology "mechanically" define that many?

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

Given that up to 50 or more discrete aim lines are needed to make all shots on the table (25 for a spot shot into a 4.5" pocket), how does Poolology "mechanically" define that many?

pj
chgo

It doesn't define that many. I specifically referenced shots from straight-in to about 38°. Beyond this the player has to estimate where the tip of the cue is pointed, because it's outside the visible edge of the ob. And that does require guesswork or estimation.

In all practicality, we don't really need to define 50+ aim lines, not even close. Nevertheless, for any shot thicker than about a 38° cut (which covers the majority of shots we're normally facing) Poolology defines the aim as simple as this....

Each of these shots is a halfball shot, and they're defined as such based on where the ob's are sitting and where the centerline between cb and ob lands on the rail.

Place an ob anywhere on either of the two thick highlighted lines shown, then place the cb at least a foot away and lined to shoot the ob straight toward the 1st diamond (on the side rail or end rail). This defines a halfball aim will pocket the ball. Of course, not every shot will go in center pocket, but they all go in - some go center pocket, some will go a little left of center and some a little right.

This is just one example of finding an aim line with absolutley no feel or guesswork or rooting around involved. The same method applies for determining a 3/4 aim or a 5/8 aim or whatever.

And if the system defines a shot that's between a 5/8 and a 3/4, then it still isn't guesswork. It either indicates that the aim is dead between those two references or a little thicker or thinner (either a perfect 16th or a little thicker or thinner).

A 16th aim difference is about a quarter of a tip. A 32nd aim difference is about an eight of a tip. Using portions of the tip or ferrule to fine tune 1/8 fractional aiming references is pretty simple and effective.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Given that up to 50 or more discrete aim lines are needed to make all shots on the table (25 for a spot shot into a 4.5" pocket), how does Poolology "mechanically" define that many?

It doesn't define that many. I specifically referenced shots from straight-in to about 38°.

That would mean "mechanical" fractional alignments down to 1/16 of a ball?

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

That would mean "mechanical" fractional alignments down to 1/16 of a ball?

pj
chgo

If that's as fine as your eyes can differentiate, but most can be much more accurate than that.

The ob aim point can actually be derived from the rail diamonds. Here is a quick sketch to show what I mean:

By using the ob's position on the table, along with the centerline between cb and ob, the system does a good job of "mechanically" providing an aim line to pocket the ball.

With this example, the ob aim point corresponds to wherever the centerline happens to hit the rail. Here it's a 4, a halfball shot. If the line pointed to 5 on the rail, then aim for 5 on the ob (a 3/8 hit).

The in-betweens can be done by aiming a quarter or eighth of a tip thinner or thicker as needed, based on what the rail value is. In other words, if the rail value is 4.5, then it can be done by aiming a quarter of tip thinner than 4 (that's about 1/16 thinner than a halfball aim). If the system indicates 4.2 or 4.3, it could be done by aiming an eighth of a tip thinner than 4, which is about 1/32 thinner than a halfball aim.

 

[BC21]

I'm definitely not discounting feel. I'm just saying there are countless shots with the Poolology system where feel or guesswork is not needed in order to find the aim line. Ensuring that you line up accordingly to send the cb down that line, however, definitely requires feel.

Eventually, after using this mechanical approach enough, you begin to recognize shots more consistently, which basically means you end up developing a good "feel" for knowing how to aim most shots without having to think about the numbers anymore.

Anyway, that's the main goal of the system, so I am definitely not downing feel. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be an integral part of developing aiming skills. Feel is the end result, rather than the means to a result.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm definitely not discounting feel.

I get that - and I'm not knocking Poolology, which I admire for what it is and agree it's pretty damned mechanical (objective) compared with other methods. But I think even Poolology's very mechanical method relies on more "visual feel" than you might think, especially as the aiming fractions get smaller.

Again, I'm just exploring the need for feel, not trying to critique Poolology. It's the most mechanical method I've heard of, so it's a good test for my premise that all systems rely on feel. That premise is based on the complexity a system would need in order to "mechanically" define all needed pool shots and still be usable by pool players at the table. As much as I admire Poolology, I'm guessing it's too far toward the too much work end of that spectrum for me - my loss.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

I get that - and I'm not knocking Poolology, which I admire for what it is and agree it's pretty damned mechanical (objective) compared with other methods. But I think even Poolology's very mechanical method relies on more "visual feel" than you might think, especially as the aiming fractions get smaller.

Again, I'm just exploring the need for feel, not trying to critique Poolology. It's the most mechanical method I've heard of, so it's a good test for my premise that all systems rely on feel. That premise is based on the complexity a system would need in order to "mechanically" define all needed pool shots and still be usable by pool players at the table. As much as I admire Poolology, I'm guessing it's too far toward the too much work end of that spectrum for me - my loss.

pj
chgo

Good post. I agree. Playing 1 hole now.

 

[bbb]

Good thig about 1 hole is even if you got the math wrong or aligned wrong if its close thats often good….

 

[BC21]

Good thig about 1 hole is even if you got the math wrong or aligned wrong if its close thats often good….

Played 6 hours and quit 3 games down. It was on a tough table that my opponent plays on almost every day, so I did a fine job. I stayed 1 or 2 ahead most of the time, but then lost focus and made a few mistakes.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It was on a tough table...

Your pic looks like it has very little distortion, so I used it to test measuring with "rulers" calibrated to the width of the two frozen balls. If that's the table you play 1P on how'd I do? (And .)

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

Your pic looks like it has very little distortion, so I used it to test measuring with "rulers" calibrated to the width of the two frozen balls. If that's the table you play 1P on how'd I do? (And .)

pj
chgo

View attachment 670753

Measured with a ruler from point to point is 3 and 7/8. I bet the other pocket is 4"! That bastard. I knew he was up to something. Lmao