Sean,
What is back of ball aiming? I don't think I'm familiar with it. If it's too long of an explanantion, don't make the effort as it is not that important. I was just wondering.
Regards,
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
Sean,
What is back of ball aiming? I don't think I'm familiar with it. If it's too long of an explanantion, don't make the effort as it is not that important. I was just wondering.
Regards,
The primary aiming challenge isn't knowing where the OB contact point is - it's knowing where the CB contact point is (and aligning it with the OB contact point). That's why we have all these aiming systems.
pj
chgo
Not sure what you're saying exactly, but if you're saying some "quality" of the stroke, and not the speed of the CB, changes how much swerve results, that's mistaken. If you hit the CB with the same stick/speed/angle, you'll get the same amount of swerve, whether you're accelerating, decelerating, hitting "firmly", or whatever.
pj
chgo
Thanks Sean.
So...(British accent) 'Back of the ball' is British for 'ghost ball contact point'.
I would have thought the back to be a point on the pocket side, but I get it, it's going to move toward the pocket, so the back is the side farthest from the pocket, or should I say 'pot'.:wink:
Thank again,
Not criticizing you, Sean, but I've seen this video several times and think it's a very poor presentation of whatever the guy in it is trying to get across.
He essentially says aiming is done entirely by feel, learned by "hitting a million balls". I don't disagree with that, but there are helpful shortcuts to learning to aim by feel that aren't considered at all, and seem to be given little respect or validity.
He doesn't seem to have clear detailed ideas about how he actually aims, at least judging by his vague descriptions. Nothing unusual or wrong with that, unless you're presenting a video that claims to teach aiming.
pj
chgo
Well Pat, I think part of the problem is that I'm quoting this video as an "answer" to the question of what is the back-of-ball aiming technique, when it's really part two of a two-part series. Part 2 is mainly the FAQ and "what are some common problems" piece, and I sort of cut to the chase in posting this, because I think this group -- the readership here -- are beyond the basics of Part 1. My bad.
But for clarity and completeness, here's Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mL3NOn-A9Bs
-Sean
I think this accelerating stroke could be equated to a stroke where the speed is estimated through practice to minimize the swerve. You cue center and below on the cue ball. I've been trying to gauge my distance to allow the squirt to work with speed control.
Best,
Mike
I'm simply guarding EVER TIME against hitting the outside part of the cue ball.
What you're saying isn't accurate as far as my personal approach to ball pocketing. I do hit the center of the pocket consistently on 4" pockets by using the "touch of inside", and like I've said before, I cue the ball a "hair" to the inside without spinning the cue ball.
If you spin it you're using too much. The way some people are interpreting the system is beyond my control. The are bound and determined that if you cue it even slightly off center you must spin it and that's just not the case. Except on slow rolled shots even in snooker the players aren't hitting the EXACT center, they will sometimes have a bit of "micro spin" applied.
In my personal system I'm just controlling that "micro spin" (to coin a phrase, and again, I'm not spinning it at all consciously) so it consistently deflects ever so slightly in one direction or I do hit the geometric center.
I'm simply guarding EVER TIME against hitting the outside part of the cue ball. Spin is not a factor at all. I respect and have incorporated snooker traits in my stance and routine, so I agree with what you're saying. You could say that my "center" is slightly "inside" and I would agree with you.
My exact quote is "when I hit the center of the pocket it's a result, not an incentive" and I do this with the "Touch" of Inside. I also talk a lot about calibrating my speed so that I'm hitting the center, but I do have the 3 Part Pocket System in place which is like a minute bail out area. This exists in snooker too, unless the ball is the same size as the pocket. And, like in my pool stroke I would NEVER advise someone to spin the Cue Ball in snooker either.
What you're saying isn't accurate as far as my personal approach to ball pocketing. I do hit the center of the pocket consistently on 4" pockets by using the "touch of inside", and like I've said before, I cue the ball a "hair" to the inside without spinning the cue ball.
If you spin it you're using too much. The way some people are interpreting the system is beyond my control. The are bound and determined that if you cue it even slightly off center you must spin it and that's just not the case. Except on slow rolled shots even in snooker the players aren't hitting the EXACT center, they will sometimes have a bit of "micro spin" applied.
In my personal system I'm just controlling that "micro spin" (to coin a phrase, and again, I'm not spinning it at all consciously) so it consistently deflects ever so slightly in one direction or I do hit the geometric center.
I'm simply guarding EVER TIME against hitting the outside part of the cue ball. Spin is not a factor at all. I respect and have incorporated snooker traits in my stance and routine, so I agree with what you're saying. You could say that my "center" is slightly "inside" and I would agree with you.
My exact quote is "when I hit the center of the pocket it's a result, not an incentive" and I do this with the "Touch" of Inside. I also talk a lot about calibrating my speed so that I'm hitting the center, but I do have the 3 Part Pocket System in place which is like a minute bail out area. This exists in snooker too, unless the ball is the same size as the pocket. And, like in my pool stroke I would NEVER advise someone to spin the Cue Ball in snooker either.
CJ:
I think you glossed-over (or missed?) this part in what you replied to:
sfleinen said:
What I'm saying is exactly what you're saying -- you know *exactly* what part of the pocket you're hitting. I actually say that, if you read carefully. But I don't think many who embrace this technique will. Instead, it will be like any other pool instruction -- a "magic pill" approach.
And, I never said spin -- except in the snooker thread, where that technique of hitting the cue ball off-axis is called "side," but I did so, so that the readership there, in the snooker forum, would know what I was referring to. It's a terminology thing -- "when in Rome, speak as the Romans do" thing.
In summary, I agree with you that you know what you're doing at all times. What I'm trying to say, is that it's not a panacea, or the latest in a long line of "magic pills" offered up. One has to pay attention, to understand the real benefit and use of the technique.
I hope that clears it up,
-Sean
The idea to me, to use a touch of inside, is not to hide a personal bad stroke, poor aiming ability or lack of experience with cue ball spin and throw effects. This a mental exercise and a simple deductive reasoning solution. Not all strokes are perfect.
Efren makes bad strokes; CJ makes bad strokes; Willie made bad strokes. When it happens, the margin for error will take affect. I do not aim loosely to a pocket. I aim specifically for the edge and cue consistently to make the ball hit center pocket. I never count on pocket slop. If I hit outside my target, I know I must adjust for conditions and change my speed.
I'm not using this technique as a gimmick because my stroke sucks. I'm logically covering all possibilities to pocket the ball besides poor aim. And I don't want to convince anyone to try it. CJ gave up a big clue here and I thank him for it. Feeding the fish is rare. I know. I played many years with champions and they never gave up too much.
So, aim center pocket. After all, it is the biggest part of the pocket. And ask all of your amateur friends where they aim. No debate there. :wink:
Best,
Mike
Efren makes bad strokes; CJ makes bad strokes; Willie made bad strokes. When it happens, the margin for error will take affect. I do not aim loosely to a pocket. I aim specifically for the edge and cue consistently to make the ball hit center pocket. I never count on pocket slop. If I hit outside my target, I know I must adjust for conditions and change my speed.
I'm not using this technique as a gimmick because my stroke sucks. I'm logically covering all possibilities to pocket the ball besides poor aim. And I don't want to convince anyone to try it. CJ gave up a big clue here and I thank him for it. Feeding the fish is rare. I know. I played many years with champions and they never gave up too much.
So, aim center pocket. After all, it is the biggest part of the pocket. And ask all of your amateur friends where they aim. No debate there. :wink:
Best,
Mike
Thanks - I didn't realize there's another part. I'll take a look, and hopefully I'll change my mind.
Again, not trying to criticize you or your choice of this video to answer the question. I've been meaning to ask if this guy's description is really all there is to back-of-ball and you just happened to be the next guy to post the vid.
pj
chgo
You do, Mike -- especially with the latter part of what I bolded above. I consider you one of the most conscientious players and students of the game around. But does your conscientious quality automatically extend to everyone just because you do? I think not.
No taunts are necessary, by the way, when someone is cautioning about the "magic pill" approach that is inherent in most pool "learning." Yes, I aim center pocket, and I'm lucidly aware of what I actually hit when I aim. And I correct, and I find root cause. Afterall, the cue sports are execution-based activities, but they go beyond just the black-and-white "did I score?"
-Sean
ALL players that reach championship speed are seeing zones
That's cool Sean, I wrote that more just to clear people that needed a bit more detail. Even though these techniques are clear to those that understand they seem to be VERY difficult to those that "aren't quite there yet".
My style is very similar to Ronnie's and even though I haven't played much snooker on a 12' I did have one in my old pool room and almost ran 100 twice in one day (with a pool cue and I only played it a few times in my life). Bringing that type of precision to pool is more or less what I did in the 90's and I owe a lot of it to studying snooker player's fundamentals. They are just more solid than "most" of our pool players and I basically blended the two forms together and came up with the one I use and teach, even though everyone looks differnent doing it because of body types, heights, arm reach, etc.
We're on the same page, it's just difficult to say I hit the center of the pocket deflecting the ball in without saying I'm aiming at the inside part of the pocket. This is one of those things that's true in one sense and not in another, which I can straighten out in person. It's just more challenging in writing especially with certain ones bound and determined to make themselves look better by trying to prove me wrong.
The techniques I talk about are used by ALL accomplished players whether they know it or not. As humans we feel and decribe what we feel differently, but ALL players that reach championship speed are seeing zones and taking advantage of the margin of error they create.
That's cool Sean, I wrote that more just to clear people that needed a bit more detail. Even though these techniques are clear to those that understand they seem to be VERY difficult to those that "aren't quite there yet".
My style is very similar to Ronnie's and even though I haven't played much snooker on a 12' I did have one in my old pool room and almost ran 100 twice in one day (with a pool cue and I only played it a few times in my life). Bringing that type of precision to pool is more or less what I did in the 90's and I owe a lot of it to studying snooker player's fundamentals. They are just more solid than "most" of our pool players and I basically blended the two forms together and came up with the one I use and teach, even though everyone looks differnent doing it because of body types, heights, arm reach, etc.
We're on the same page, it's just difficult to say I hit the center of the pocket deflecting the ball in without saying I'm aiming at the inside part of the pocket. This is one of those things that's true in one sense and not in another, which I can straighten out in person. It's just more challenging in writing especially with certain ones bound and determined to make themselves look better by trying to prove me wrong.
The techniques I talk about are used by ALL accomplished players whether they know it or not. As humans we feel and decribe what we feel differently, but ALL players that reach championship speed are seeing zones and taking advantage of the margin of error they create.
"when you try to bring conscious attention to a subconsious activity
This is a great line because what it comes down to is "when you try to bring conscious attention to a subconsious activity many are going to be confused or want to reject the information". That's probably a natural process and the main thing for me is the information is finally getting out to people that want or need it to enjoy the Game more or in a better way.
I want to see things change for the better once and for all and for me this involves freely giving. Having the "taking" attitude has not done well in evolving the Game, as a matter of fact in many ways it's gone backwards. 'The Game is the Teacher'
This is a great line because what it comes down to is "when you try to bring conscious attention to a subconsious activity many are going to be confused or want to reject the information". That's probably a natural process and the main thing for me is the information is finally getting out to people that want or need it to enjoy the Game more or in a better way.
I want to see things change for the better once and for all and for me this involves freely giving. Having the "taking" attitude has not done well in evolving the Game, as a matter of fact in many ways it's gone backwards. 'The Game is the Teacher'
CJ:
Thank you, and just to make sure we're not misunderstanding each other, you do know that when I use the term "conscientious," I don't mean "conscious," right? Different terms altogether. Obviously, I intend the former to mean that Mike (and yourself, obviously) are lucidly aware of what you're doing, and why you're doing it. And in Mike's case, I make the observation that he's of this "lucidly aware" type related to what's important to always be on the improvement path as a player. He *cares* about everything.
Concerning the conscious/subconscious thing, I'm a dead-firm believer in subconscious execution -- engage conscious for pattern recognition, shot selection, and aiming while standing; but the moment you get on the shot line and bend over into your stance -- <click!> the conscious mind turns off, and the subconscious takes over. "Conscious while standing, subconscious when shooting."
Not sure if it will interest you, but a good while back I posted what many consider an "article" (of sorts?) on how to do this:
"Leveraging your subconscious (read: don't let your conscious get in the way!)"
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=216564
Let me know what you think,
-Sean
always be on the improvement path as a player
CJ:
Thank you, and just to make sure we're not misunderstanding each other, you do know that when I use the term "conscientious," I don't mean "conscious," right? Different terms altogether. Obviously, I intend the former to mean that Mike (and yourself, obviously) are lucidly aware of what you're doing, and why you're doing it.
Yes, in this forum it's best served in morsels. :wink: I do have some input on your other post, and I'll address that later, it's been a long laborious day. :boring2:
PJ..I find it hard to believe, that all the interesting topics/points of view/etc. regarding 'aiming systems', can possibly be covered in ONLY 1800 or so posts..Seems like a real shortage of infomercials and diagrams in this thread..'Sup widat ?
Obviously, there are many more exciting aiming methods to discuss, in greater detail ? Surely the blasphemy, of a few 'MEDIOCRE' player's (like Schmidt and Duell) cannot silence the fanatical opinions, of the A.S.S. group ? (aka, Yeasayer's)..:sorry:
PS..Please alert me, via PM, when the thread reaches 3000 posts. I can hardly wait !
:wink2:
Last edited:
the average person has over 30,000 thoughts a day
I think you did a good job describing the process, even though it's paradoxical ( self-contradictory) to bring conscious attention to a sub conscious activity.
It's commonly understood that the average person has over 30,000 thoughts a day, so to try to shut this off and "experience the game" or anything else for that matter is very, very difficult. From my experience it takes training in some type of meditative practice. Anapana is a very good because you just focus on your breathing which is a bridge between the conscious and the subconscious mind. I highly recommend it for anyone that is truly trying to reach a higher level in sports, or life in general. CLICK PICTURE FOR MORE
I think you did a good job describing the process, even though it's paradoxical ( self-contradictory) to bring conscious attention to a sub conscious activity.
It's commonly understood that the average person has over 30,000 thoughts a day, so to try to shut this off and "experience the game" or anything else for that matter is very, very difficult. From my experience it takes training in some type of meditative practice. Anapana is a very good because you just focus on your breathing which is a bridge between the conscious and the subconscious mind. I highly recommend it for anyone that is truly trying to reach a higher level in sports, or life in general. CLICK PICTURE FOR MORE
Fisher's Exact Test
TABLE = [ 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 ]
Left : p-value = 0.8333333333333323
Right : p-value = 0.8333333333333337
2-Tail : p-value = 1
Does this apply
