Is there such a thing as the TLAR method?

[Puck90a]

Just checking to see if this already exists, otherwise, I'm coining the term here: TLAR = That Looks About Right.

I've been playing pool for 12 years. Started my freshman year of college in 2003. Spent hours everyday in the student union. Then started going to bars. Then got my own table. Then joined APA. I haven't played REAL persistently, but moderately for a long time. I'm a SL 6. I can run racks from time to time.

But I don't know how to aim...

If the OB is 2 feet away from the pocket, I've been playing long enough to use the TLAR method and get it in. My home table pockets are narrow so that hopefully they will tighten me up some, but usually the pocket width on bar tables forgives my errors, or I just miss and say WTF. But I can kinda imagine the lines, and muscle memory and TLAR gets me through.

Ghost ball is bullshit. "Just freeze the ghost ball to the OB on the shot line, then shoot straight at the ghostball with the CB." That's great, until you get down on the the cue ball and realize you can't imagine where the ghost ball is supposed to be anymore. I see new players stroking behind the object ball to sight in the contact point. Worthless on a shiny perfectly spherical ball that may be several feet away.

If I need to angle the OB slightly to the left, I just aim the CB slightly to the right and hope for the best. TLAR. It actually works a fair amount of the time.

Then there's position play. I haven't drilled it enough to be very consistent, but I get the principles of it and tangent lines. I have a good stroke. I understand throw and can usually compensate for it well, assuming I'm not too far away from the pocket and TLAR is tiding me over. But my position play is usually good enough to set me up with a shot that I recognize and can use TLAR on.

But if I put the cue ball on the head spot, and the OB on the foot spot, and try to make it in a corner pocket, I might make it 3/10 times. Pathetic. But I can usually get pretty close.

The thing is, I see PROS miss long angle shots, so I know it's not easy for anyone. A pro basketball player can't make every shot from across the basketball court. Seems like pros just make more shots because they set themselves up for shots they recognize. If there's a long angle shot that requires precision, pros miss it too. It's a low percentage shot for everyone. However, it's not as low for pros as it is for me. How? How do they raise their percentages (many long angle shots are never 100% even for pros)? Sometimes I mark my table with tape so I can replicate the CB and OB placement, and practice a long difficult angle shot 20 times. I make it 5/20 times, and there just doesn't seem to be a lot of rhyme or reason. If I break and just TLAR every shot, I can run a rack sometimes. But if I setup the same long angled shot and try it 20 times, I start thinking more objectively and TLAR doesn't work anymore because I'm second guessing my angle and trying to find a consistent aim.

I want to feel like I KNOW how to make it, and it's just a matter of having a steady enough handle and trigger finger to fire the pistol at the bulls eye so to speak. No guessing at where the bulls eye actually is.

So I'm wondering - are we all just using the TLAR method, but some people have just practiced more and formed better muscle memory? What looks "about right" to me may not be as "right" as the "about right" for a SL 9? And are all these other methods just playing off of TLAR, but we give them other names to trick ourselves into thinking we found something that helps us?

 

[nobcitypool]

Obviously, you know how to aim to at least a certain degree. I don't think aiming is the core problem for the vast majority of players. Anyone can stand behind the OB and see the line it must take to go into the pocket. The problem begins when you have to figure out how to take another sphere and make the correct contact points come together.

Aiming systems are more than just aiming. They include solid stroke fundamentals and alignment. I believe way more shots are missed due to stroke,alignment and a poor (or non existent) PSR than due to aim. You can also throw in all that crazy vision stuff with dominant eye, etc..

If you read much in this forum, it's obvious I'm a huge fan of CTE/Pro One. I don't believe it is "that looks about right" in the least. It's equally obvious you will find many who would debate that statement.

If you want to get better, IMHO, you will adopt a system of some kind. When I say system, I am including a straight stroke, proper alignment, a sound PSR, knowledge of the game and last, and perhaps even least, aiming. I am very fortunate to live reasonably close (3 hours) from Stan Shuffett and been able to seek out his help for all those items I included in the system. On top of that, I've had the added bonus of getting multiple lessons from Stevie Moore. Both have helped me develop a straight stroke, vastly improved alignment, a good PSR and shared so much knowledge of the game, my shot making has improved dramatically. CTE/Pro One aiming is just the icing on the cake. What so many people overlook is that Stan's system is far, far more than just aiming.

I would add that my Son had 1 1/2 lessons from Stevie. I played a ton with him last weekend when I visited Alabama. I couldn't believe how much he has improved in just 6 weeks. He was like a completely different player.

 

[Pidge]

TLAR...i like it, catchy...

Ghost ball isn't bull shit, if it was snooker players wouldn't make a ball. Some can either visualize it, or they can't. Those that can't use it effectively will be quick to state how its bull shit. You see it a lot with CTE. Those that can't grasp CTE tend to bash it, I assume out of frustration. Regardless of how you aim, at some point you have to let go of what
ever system it is you have been using and allow memory to take over. Or, TLAR as you've named it. Ask any professional snooker player how they aim and they will say either ghost ball or BoB. They don't...they did, but no professional uses a system consciously. Most will shuffle about behind the cue ball whilst they chalk, until a green light goes off in their head saying TLAR...or because they're pros...TLR.

When you throw the ability to hit the cue ball where you want a high percentage of the time and vast amounts of experience you don't need a conscious method of aim.

 

[Puck90a]

TLAR...i like it, catchy...

Ghost ball isn't bull shit, if it was snooker players wouldn't make a ball. Some can either visualize it, or they can't. Those that can't use it effectively will be quick to state how its bull shit. You see it a lot with CTE. Those that can't grasp CTE tend to bash it, I assume out of frustration. Regardless of how you aim, at some point you have to let go of what
ever system it is you have been using and allow memory to take over. Or, TLAR as you've named it. Ask any professional snooker player how they aim and they will say either ghost ball or BoB. They don't...they did, but no professional uses a system consciously. Most will shuffle about behind the cue ball whilst they chalk, until a green light goes off in their head saying TLAR...or because they're pros...TLR.

When you throw the ability to hit the cue ball where you want a high percentage of the time and vast amounts of experience you don't need a conscious method of aim.

Yeah, it isn't complete bullshit. Ghost ball gives me a good idea of where to aim. But if it really worked, then I would almost never miss assuming my stroke was sound.

I think the first few years I played were a complete waste of time. I picked up a lot of stupid habits playing in the student union, and it wasn't until later that I realized how still my bridge hand had to be (I now like to think of it as a prosthetic limb when I play), and how straight my right arm has to move, and how centered my tip needs to be on the CB. I'm not a 100% perfect all the time, but I think I've pretty well honed in my stroke, especially when I'm warmed up. When I miss, I think it's usually because I flat out didn't see the angle correctly.

I like that you mention the pros shuffling around behind the object ball until they TLAR it . I find I shoot my best when I do that. Just look at it, draw the imaginary lines, TLAR it, PSR, solidify my stroke, and don't think too hard about it otherwise. When I actually try to methodically aim, it all goes to shit. If I try to actually shoot at a ghost ball, it doesn't go well. If I try the same shot multiple times using markers on the table, I stop using TLAR, and it goes badly. TLAR and instinct seem to serve me best in the limited situations that I've become accustomed to. In more testing situations, I don't have as much instinct, so I try to fall back on method, which doesn't work.

I'm tired of relying on TLAR. I'd like to find a more reliable way of lining up shots so that I don't have to keep guessing and going off of instinct. That's why I mentioned having tape markers all over my table at home to try shots that won't let me TLAR it. I'm trying to build more of that instinct and recognition, and it's tough.

And of course another layer to all of this is deflection and throw. It's amazing to me how much using english throws the OB. I've learned the effect on a handful of scenarios and can compensate. But if I'm TLARing most of my more difficult aiming shots (so not 100% sure on my aim), AND trying to apply english, then I'm not even using TLAR. I'm using the HGN method then (Here Hoes Nothin')

 

[Pidge]

Yeah, it isn't complete bullshit. Ghost ball gives me a good idea of where to aim. But if it really worked, then I would almost never miss assuming my stroke was sound.

I think the first few years I played were a complete waste of time. I picked up a lot of stupid habits playing in the student union, and it wasn't until later that I realized how still my bridge hand had to be (I now like to think of it as a prosthetic limb when I play), and how straight my right arm has to move, and how centered my tip needs to be on the CB. I'm not a 100% perfect all the time, but I think I've pretty well honed in my stroke, especially when I'm warmed up. When I miss, I think it's usually because I flat out didn't see the angle correctly.

I like that you mention the pros shuffling around behind the object ball until they TLAR it . I find I shoot my best when I do that. Just look at it, draw the imaginary lines, TLAR it, PSR, solidify my stroke, and don't think too hard about it otherwise. When I actually try to methodically aim, it all goes to shit. If I try to actually shoot at a ghost ball, it doesn't go well. If I try the same shot multiple times using markers on the table, I stop using TLAR, and it goes badly. TLAR and instinct seem to serve me best in the limited situations that I've become accustomed to. In more testing situations, I don't have as much instinct, so I try to fall back on method, which doesn't work.

I'm tired of relying on TLAR. I'd like to find a more reliable way of lining up shots so that I don't have to keep guessing and going off of instinct. That's why I mentioned having tape markers all over my table at home to try shots that won't let me TLAR it. I'm trying to build more of that instinct and recognition, and it's tough.

And of course another layer to all of this is deflection and throw. It's amazing to me how much using english throws the OB. I've learned the effect on a handful of scenarios and can compensate. But if I'm TLARing most of my more difficult aiming shots (so not 100% sure on my aim), AND trying to apply english, then I'm not even using TLAR. I'm using the HGN method then (Here Hoes Nothin')

First off, have a read of this. In particular about finding the cues natural pivot length for using Back Hand English (BHE).

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/English.html

Now, I feel its important to dissect how you aim. How you position your body in relation to the line of the shot, how your eyes are working, pin pointing exactly what you are looking at, how you move into the shot. Then after you figure this out you needs to consciously practice everything you found, shot after shot to see if it works. It then gives you something to fall back on when the shot doesn't look right, or you have doubts. The thing with having doubts is, you may be lined up right to pocket the ball, but if you have that niggling voice in your head that says it needs to be a thinner hit, you will steer the cue putting unintentional side on the white and send the white off line. So its important to always believe you are going to make the ball...thats easier said than done, and what I find works is to solely think about position and how hard I'm hitting the shot when down, that way I can't doubt my self.

Personally I use a slight for of ghost ball when I'm playing well. I simply imagine the cue ball travelling towards the object ball at the speed I need and my brain factors in throw and all that other stuff. If I don't find the right line of aim first I shuffle over a tad and imagine the cue ball moving towards the object ball again. Sounds long and a bit like trial and error, but because I've hit so many balls it takes a split second.

 

[Puck90a]

Yeah I don't like to just imagine the ghost cue ball sitting frozen in line with the object ball. I try to actually imagine a ghost cue ball I'm about to hit rolling towards the object ball, and decide whether that looks right. I'm sure you've experienced the feeling where immediately after you strike the cue ball you think "that ain't gonna work." Or sometimes I can see the cue ball halfway on its trip toward hitting the object ball, and I think "nope." Or sometimes I think I know where I need to aim, but I think "I have some recollection of overcutting a shot like this recently", so I lessen the angle a little bit, then it turns out I under cut it and I see that my initial instinct was right all along.

And I know the pros are good at making it look easy, but when I see them shoot balls and make them, nothing is surprising about it. It just looks natural and obvious when viewing from a bird's eye view in the third person. But when you're in the first person perspective, it's just so much harder to visualize. It feels like trying to parallel park a limousine without turning your head. Seems to me, you just have to smash the bumpers of the other cars 3000 times until your brain finally locks in the feel of the car and how it fits. Otherwise, people devise a bunch of methods of figuring out how many times to turn the steering wheel and for many seconds, and where the rear view mirror is in relation to a building on the horizon, etc etc, if you get my analogy.. Although, if I play a pool video game from a birds eye view, that doesn't make it much easier. I still miss. And a video game will have a perfect stroke, so....

 

[Pidge]

Yeah I don't like to just imagine the ghost cue ball sitting frozen in line with the object ball. I try to actually imagine a ghost cue ball I'm about to hit rolling towards the object ball, and decide whether that looks right. I'm sure you've experienced the feeling where immediately after you strike the cue ball you think "that ain't gonna work." Or sometimes I can see the cue ball halfway on its trip toward hitting the object ball, and I think "nope." Or sometimes I think I know where I need to aim, but I think "I have some recollection of overcutting a shot like this recently", so I lessen the angle a little bit, then it turns out I under cut it and I see that my initial instinct was right all along.

And I know the pros are good at making it look easy, but when I see them shoot balls and make them, nothing is surprising about it. It just looks natural and obvious when viewing from a bird's eye view in the third person. But when you're in the first person perspective, it's just so much harder to visualize. It feels like trying to parallel park a limousine without turning your head. Seems to me, you just have to smash the bumpers of the other cars 3000 times until your brain finally locks in the feel of the car and how it fits. Otherwise, people devise a bunch of methods of figuring out how many times to turn the steering wheel and for many seconds, and where the rear view mirror is in relation to a building on the horizon, etc etc, if you get my analogy.. Although, if I play a pool video game from a birds eye view, that doesn't make it much easier. I still miss. And a video game will have a perfect stroke, so....

Everyone can aim very accurately and you aren't any different. You just have to have a few basic skill sets that you can repeat. Firstly would be having the head and eyes in the correct position. Both when standing doing the aiming part, and when down on the shot to give your brain the best possible picture of what's in front of you. Second is getting down on the shot. Get down in such a fashion that the eyes do not deviate from the 'aim line' you have picked for the cue ball. Straight down, not coming in at an angle as a lot of players do. Lastly its the stroke. Having faith you hit the cue ball accurately lets you know how to adjust when you miss. You know you lined that one up too thick, instead of wondering if its because you hit the cue ball poorly.

If you get the opportunity lay some electrical tape along the rail, and down onto the baize to create a perfect line using the cushion to provide a 'step'. You notice a slight shift in the eyes position makes this perfect line of tape look staggered because of the step. How do you use this to your advantage? Simple. Place a cue ball at the end of the tape on the table, stand back as far as you normally would when in the aiming process but stand in a way that the tape looks perfectly straight. Next move into the cue ball, all the time making sure the tape looks straight. When you are down you should be aimed through centre cue ball, the cue should be aligned with the tape, and the tape should look straight.

Practicing this ensures you can find centre cue ball accurately, you are approaching shots properly and your alignment is spotless. I used to do this for hours upon hours when I was a kid and the jump in my ability to pocket balls sky rocketed.

 

[mohrt]

tlar = piith

[edit] why is the editor lower casing my input?

 

[JB Cases]

of course there is. TLAR is what everyone uses regardless of what tools they use.

Aiming ranges from the spectrum of - pure feel to a highly developed measured approach.

But everywhere on that spectrum the shooter has to face the TLAR moment where he decides to get down and address the ball.

The only question is how refined your method is and how experienced you are will generally reflect in how consistent you are in pocketing balls. Assuming your stroke is ok that is.

 

[JB Cases]

Here is a big giant downside to aiming systems OR if you will to having a dead nuts perfect laser line to the the perfect GB position for every shot........

Once you have the perfect shot line now it is extremely easy to throw the cue ball OFF that line with a sketchy stroke.

Come to that realization and your stroke might get even sketchier.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think TLAR is a much better way of describing it instead of the undefinable word "feel". At least the "L" refers to the VISUAL aspect of aiming which it in fact is regardless of how or what is used. "FEEL" is vague, inappropriate, and misused in order to evade describing what is going on with the eyes to align the balls, shaft, and target (which could be a pocket, rail, or another ball)

The question that arises is WHAT looks about right? Is it...

1. The orientation of the CB to the OB for a true ghost ball alignment?

2. The alignment of the OB contact point with the front side contact point of the CB after the shot line has been determined by the angle to the pocket?

3. The tip of the cue and shaft line from a spot on the CB to another spot (contact point or vertical fraction line on OB center or edge of OB?

4. The overlap of the CB to the OB based on edges or centers similar to phases of the moon or partial eclipse of the sun? IOW, a straight in shot would be a total or full eclipse of the OB by the CB and the shaft alignment would be a straight line through the center of the CB to the center of the OB.

It has to be one of the four above or a couple of variations, so which is it? If it isn't one of the four, then what else? Shadows? Lights? How are they used? What are you SEEING? What LOOKS ABOUT RIGHT?

There have been many arguments and flame wars over the years between proponents of aiming systems and opponents of aiming systems. The opponents will say they only need to "shoot by feel" or "just see the shot line" leaving the impression that everything they shoot at goes in and is never missed.

However, I have never seen one of those types of players be able to describe what they're referring to visually and most importantly be able to TEACH or PASS ON what they see to other players. How can it be instructed to those who haven't lived on a pool table their entire life? Yet they knock, belittle, denigrate and degrade methods of visual aiming and those who teach it...whatever it might be. What's wrong with this picture? It doesn't even make sense that there are such hostile opponents to aiming systems since everybody MUST SEE whatever is necessary to make balls. It's called AIMING and yes, even the pros do it.

Explain WHAT you're seeing and LOOKS about right to teach someone else as well as clarify it for yourself.

 

[Ratta]

I think TLAR is a much better way of describing it instead of the undefinable word "feel". At least the "L" refers to the VISUAL aspect of aiming which it in fact is regardless of how or what is used. "FEEL" is vague, inappropriate, and misused in order to evade describing what is going on with the eyes to align the balls, shaft, and target (which could be a pocket, rail, or another ball)

The question that arises is WHAT looks about right? Is it...

1. The orientation of the CB to the OB for a true ghost ball alignment?

2. The alignment of the OB contact point with the front side contact point of the CB after the shot line has been determined by the angle to the pocket?

3. The tip of the cue and shaft line from a spot on the CB to another spot (contact point or vertical fraction line on OB center or edge of OB?

4. The overlap of the CB to the OB based on edges or centers similar to phases of the moon or partial eclipse of the sun? IOW, a straight in shot would be a total or full eclipse of the OB by the CB and the shaft alignment would be a straight line through the center of the CB to the center of the OB.

It has to be one of the four above or a couple of variations, so which is it? If it isn't one of the four, then what else? Shadows? Lights? How are they used? What are you SEEING? What LOOKS ABOUT RIGHT?

There have been many arguments and flame wars over the years between proponents of aiming systems and opponents of aiming systems. The opponents will say they only need to "shoot by feel" or "just see the shot line" leaving the impression that everything they shoot at goes in and is never missed.

However, I have never seen one of those types of players be able to describe what they're referring to visually and most importantly be able to TEACH or PASS ON what they see to other players. How can it be instructed to those who haven't lived on a pool table their entire life? Yet they knock, belittle, denigrate and degrade methods of visual aiming and those who teach it...whatever it might be. What's wrong with this picture? It doesn't even make sense that there are such hostile opponents to aiming systems since everybody MUST SEE whatever is necessary to make balls. It's called AIMING and yes, even the pros do it.

Explain WHAT you're seeing and LOOKS about right to teach someone else as well as clarify it for yourself.

very nice posting dave!
hope you re doing great my friend.
just the best from the other side ☺☺

 

[Pidge]

I think TLAR is a much better way of describing it instead of the undefinable word "feel". At least the "L" refers to the VISUAL aspect of aiming which it in fact is regardless of how or what is used. "FEEL" is vague, inappropriate, and misused in order to evade describing what is going on with the eyes to align the balls, shaft, and target (which could be a pocket, rail, or another ball)

The question that arises is WHAT looks about right? Is it...

1. The orientation of the CB to the OB for a true ghost ball alignment?

2. The alignment of the OB contact point with the front side contact point of the CB after the shot line has been determined by the angle to the pocket?

3. The tip of the cue and shaft line from a spot on the CB to another spot (contact point or vertical fraction line on OB center or edge of OB?

4. The overlap of the CB to the OB based on edges or centers similar to phases of the moon or partial eclipse of the sun? IOW, a straight in shot would be a total or full eclipse of the OB by the CB and the shaft alignment would be a straight line through the center of the CB to the center of the OB.

It has to be one of the four above or a couple of variations, so which is it? If it isn't one of the four, then what else? Shadows? Lights? How are they used? What are you SEEING? What LOOKS ABOUT RIGHT?

There have been many arguments and flame wars over the years between proponents of aiming systems and opponents of aiming systems. The opponents will say they only need to "shoot by feel" or "just see the shot line" leaving the impression that everything they shoot at goes in and is never missed.

However, I have never seen one of those types of players be able to describe what they're referring to visually and most importantly be able to TEACH or PASS ON what they see to other players. How can it be instructed to those who haven't lived on a pool table their entire life? Yet they knock, belittle, denigrate and degrade methods of visual aiming and those who teach it...whatever it might be. What's wrong with this picture? It doesn't even make sense that there are such hostile opponents to aiming systems since everybody MUST SEE whatever is necessary to make balls. It's called AIMING and yes, even the pros do it.

Explain WHAT you're seeing and LOOKS about right to teach someone else as well as clarify it for yourself.

I think TLAR refers to seeing a line towards the OB then a line towards the pocket. Based on memory we remember angles fairly well, so although there is countless places the OB and CB can be on the table we only have to remember a set number of angles...90 or so. In fact its less because of the pockets being forgiving. What might be a 45 degree cut, a 43 degree cut would still make the ball. You don't have to see contact points, overlaps lights or shadows to know if its looking about right but they all help. Its like when you have BIH, you position the eyes along a line of aim before placing the CB, so the line of aim is picked out without the use of a CB to visualize anything. If you stand behind the CB and shuffle around a bit whilst forgetting the CB is there you will be more successful that actually paying attention to the CB-OB relationship.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think TLAR refers to seeing a line towards the OB then a line towards the pocket. Based on memory we remember angles fairly well, so although there is countless places the OB and CB can be on the table we only have to remember a set number of angles...90 or so. In fact its less because of the pockets being forgiving. What might be a 45 degree cut, a 43 degree cut would still make the ball. You don't have to see contact points, overlaps lights or shadows to know if its looking about right but they all help. Its like when you have BIH, you position the eyes along a line of aim before placing the CB, so the line of aim is picked out without the use of a CB to visualize anything. If you stand behind the CB and shuffle around a bit whilst forgetting the CB is there you will be more successful that actually paying attention to the CB-OB relationship.

Now go ahead and explain it in very specific words to somewhat of a newbie pool player or one who has less experience than you. I know what you're saying but it would be flying right over the head of someone who doesn't have the table time and years of experience to be doing a waltz shuffle behind the CB. They would still be missing balls and have no clue. What are the visuals? I don't think there are very many players or any who can tell you what the shot angle is with any accuracy other than 0 degrees or 90 degrees. Everything else is a guess. I've seen many players including pros miss shots with BIH. They didn't see something correctly and pros have straight strokes.

The balls are 2 1/4" in diameter. That means some portion of 1 1/8" of the CB has to strike some portion on the 1 1/8" of the OB to cut a ball from 1 degree to 90 (87) degrees regardless of the lines from the pocket to the balls. How do you get the balls to impact each other at the exact spots on the 1 1/8" of both? How do you align them to do it?

 

[Pidge]

Now go ahead and explain it in very specific words to somewhat of a newbie pool player or one who has less experience than you. I know what you're saying but it would be flying right over the head of someone who doesn't have the table time and years of experience to be doing a waltz shuffle behind the CB. They would still be missing balls and have no clue. What are the visuals? I don't think there are very many players or any who can tell you what the shot angle is with any accuracy other than 0 degrees or 90 degrees. Everything else is a guess. I've seen many players including pros miss shots with BIH. They didn't see something correctly and pros have straight strokes.

The balls are 2 1/4" in diameter. That means some portion of 1 1/8" of the CB has to strike some portion on the 1 1/8" of the OB to cut a ball from 1 degree to 90 (87) degrees regardless of the lines from the pocket to the balls. How do you get the balls to impact each other at the exact spots on the 1 1/8" of both? How do you align them to do it?

That's the thing, you can't explain it. I've read back my reply to you and it confused me! It would take someone with a lot more brain power than my self to explain it for a newbie. When I'm TLAR'in, I'm not thinking about it, that's why its so difficult to explain. If I had to try explain to someone id have to say just stand there with a vacant look on your face and let the eyes lead and tour body will follow until you reach the shot line. Confusing, eh?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

That's the thing, you can't explain it. I've read back my reply to you and it confused me! It would take someone with a lot more brain power than my self to explain it for a newbie. When I'm TLAR'in, I'm not thinking about it, that's why its so difficult to explain. If I had to try explain to someone id have to say just stand there with a vacant look on your face and let the eyes lead and tour body will follow until you reach the shot line. Confusing, eh?

Most aiming systems not only are able to explain it to a newbie but also to those at pro level whether it's Joe Tucker's contact point aiming with training balls, arrows on the table, CJ Wiley's 3 part aiming method, Ron Vitello's 90-90, SEE System, StanShuffett's CTE, Hal Houle's Shiskebob method, and many others. They ALL work and can cut the learning and success time down immensely. Some are easier to visualize than others depending upon the player himself/herself and can be either less effective or more effective depending on skill level and table time.

Pidge, you may be a great player who is at pro level or somewhere in between pro and newbie yourself. But I'd have to award you with an APA 1 level when it comes to teaching/verbalizing the different methods and visuals associated with aiming, even your own. Don't take it the wrong way, please, but I'm sure there will be plenty of other APA 1 awards to be passed out.

Remember, it's not about what YOU or anybody else uses and how effective it is, it's about being able to verbally and visually transfer and explain it to OTHER players so
TLAR pockets a high percentage of balls.

 

[Pidge]

You're right, my verbal skills when it comes to my way of aiming are piss poor. Good job I don't aim with my mouth. Fortunately, my verbal skills when it comes to all other aspects of the game are spot on. I'm not a fan of aiming methods for the most part, they over complicate things in my view. Knowing how to align yourself and having solid fundamentals con mostly take away from having to aim and it becomes a quick trial and error.

 

[Banks]

There have been many arguments and flame wars over the years between proponents of aiming systems and opponents of aiming systems. The opponents will say they only need to "shoot by feel" or "just see the shot line" leaving the impression that everything they shoot at goes in and is never missed.

However, I have never seen one of those types of players be able to describe what they're referring to visually and most importantly be able to TEACH or PASS ON what they see to other players. How can it be instructed to those who haven't lived on a pool table their entire life? Yet they knock, belittle, denigrate and degrade methods of visual aiming and those who teach it...whatever it might be. What's wrong with this picture? It doesn't even make sense that there are such hostile opponents to aiming systems since everybody MUST SEE whatever is necessary to make balls. It's called AIMING and yes, even the pros do it.

Explain WHAT you're seeing and LOOKS about right to teach someone else as well as clarify it for yourself.

I could describe what I do, but describing how my mind's eye interprets things may not make as much sense to somebody else. System users are knocked, denigrated and degraded because of what they say, not because of what they do or don't do. If you think a person won't be belittled when they talk trash about "feel" players, say how they've been learning this system for years, but can't make a ball in the ocean, of course you'd be wrong. Just like Duckie would be wrong for thinking the same when it's questionable whether or not he can run a rack of anything.

By saying that your system is the best way to aim and that it's infallable("it was the stroke that made me miss", etc), but be backed up by run of the mill APA players and others that have been playing for years, is just trolling for ridicule. Also, by saying that such-and-such is "the best", it's implying that any other way is not as good. Just too much made-up fluff for anyone to be comfortable with.

I've learned by just about every way that people say is wrong.. sure has worked for me, though. So, when I hear that what I'm doing is certain death for my progress, while others that struggle try to tell me that their way is the best, it isn't going to go down well. The only people around here throwing challenges down that they'd be likely to back up are those that have been playing for decades. The Bartons and Nobs are as big a hinderance to system arguments as Duckie is to "feel" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[nobcitypool]

I'll look to watch you play at the US Open Chump, oops, I mean champ. Show me where I've said other aiming systems don't work or that players using other aiming systems cannot play at a professional level. I've only said CTE/Pro One works best for me and advocated the use of it. If your reading comprehension is so low you can't grasp that, it's your problem.

I could describe what I do, but describing how my mind's eye interprets things may not make as much sense to somebody else. System users are knocked, denigrated and degraded because of what they say, not because of what they do or don't do. If you think a person won't be belittled when they talk trash about "feel" players, say how they've been learning this system for years, but can't make a ball in the ocean, of course you'd be wrong. Just like Duckie would be wrong for thinking the same when it's questionable whether or not he can run a rack of anything.

By saying that your system is the best way to aim and that it's infallable("it was the stroke that made me miss", etc), but be backed up by run of the mill APA players and others that have been playing for years, is just trolling for ridicule. Also, by saying that such-and-such is "the best", it's implying that any other way is not as good. Just too much made-up fluff for anyone to be comfortable with.

I've learned by just about every way that people say is wrong.. sure has worked for me, though. So, when I hear that what I'm doing is certain death for my progress, while others that struggle try to tell me that their way is the best, it isn't going to go down well. The only people around here throwing challenges down that they'd be likely to back up are those that have been playing for decades. The Bartons and Nobs are as big a hinderance to system arguments as Duckie is to "feel" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You're right, my verbal skills when it comes to my way of aiming are piss poor. Good job I don't aim with my mouth. Fortunately, my verbal skills when it comes to all other aspects of the game are spot on. I'm not a fan of aiming methods for the most part, they over complicate things in my view. Knowing how to align yourself and having solid fundamentals con mostly take away from having to aim and it becomes a quick trial and error.

Good thing none of us aim with our mouth because we ALL do it with our EYES. Just articulate what your EYES are seeing.

If you're having such difficulty understanding what you do and being able to articulate it, how do you know that other aiming systems over complicate things? If that's the case, explain in full detail what the eyes see and how balls are aligned for any other aiming system but you're own. Did it ever occur to you that some of those other methods may actually be more simple than what you do as well as produce more accuracy? So, pick any aiming system you desire and explain it.

Did I just understand you correctly that you said you don't have to aim at all? I guess some players don't aim. They're called Bangers.