Been watching aiming systems on YouTube. I find it funny that most of them are shown shooting in an object ball a diamond away from the pocket. Wish they would use the system on half table shots... then we can see if it really works.
New aiming systems...
- Thread starter Billiard Architect
- Start date
Oikawa
Well-known member
Aiming systems are mostly useful for beginners who struggle to even make those easy shots without an aiming system. There are exceptions of course. I'm not saying that all aiming systems are inaccurate or most fruitful for beginners, but a large majority of them are.
Those who play at a high level with an aiming system most definitely incorporate elements outside of that system into their aiming process (accounting for all the variables e.g. sidespin, throw, swerve), and they would, if they put in the effort, play at an equally high level without the aiming system, either with some other system or no system at all.
If you have played for 20 years and are playing at a high level with an aiming system, I wouldn't suggest changing it, especially if aiming the balls isn't a weakness in your game. But I believe that guiding newer players towards a more intuitive approach for aiming is more likely to produce higher level players.
If an aiming system is taught as a temporary guidance, like training wheels for pool, I can see the benefit, but if one gets into the trap of believing there exists a holy grail of aiming, a secret that lets you reason out the exact aim point, a substitute for shooting thousands of shots, they will most likely hinder their learning process.
Last edited:
I agree. In my opinion most really good players don’t rely on an aiming system. Just having hit so many shots from all various angles for so many years, their brain/memory lets them know precisely where to aim. When their game deserts them under pressure, it’s generally the result of a breakdown in their stroke / fundamentals.
I don't think any aiming system works at any level without "incorporating elements outside of that system". No system is fine grained enough to define all cut angles (much less cover all the physical variables) without "user input" from the beginning.
pj
chgo
Oikawa
Well-known member
I agree. Defining all cut angles if we ignore all other variables is possible with some systems (e.g. anything involving calculating the cut angle mathematically, and translating that into a certain aiming point on the OB), but once we start including the other variables (throw, spin etc.), things fall apart without adjustments.
The corrected ghost ball system would do all angles exactly but knowing the corrections precisely is problematic especially if you include side spin shots.
I use simple geometry to identify the shot lines - obviously the stick line too. Shooting the shot can require fine tuning the stick line (this is the only part I'd consider aiming) but for most center ball/perfect rolling shots, the stick line is law.
I mostly shoot by feel now. Bob J. (good to see ya) and I discussed the CTE, stick aiming, lights... etc, back when Hal Houle was a traveling tutor giving his knowledge for free. We pretty much guesstimate that a lot of these systems forces the subconscious to aim instead of the side of your brain that questions why you missed that easy shot. Giving way to be confident in your ability to just make the shot.
I do like to keep up with what ppl use for aiming in case something new comes down the pike. I was surprised to see parallel aiming explained. Those that remember Sharma back from the RSB days was selling a pdf that explained it.
I do like to keep up with what ppl use for aiming in case something new comes down the pike. I was surprised to see parallel aiming explained. Those that remember Sharma back from the RSB days was selling a pdf that explained it.
I personally think any system that does not include intended CB position should be thrown in the trash, including ghost ball. The same exact cut shot is aimed 20 different ways depending on where you want the CB to go. Players, even beginners, should be taught “the whole shot including position” when aiming any particular shot.
I don’t think center ball shots with theoretical ghost ball are useful at all, even as a starting reference. They are so far removed from actual shots, that I believe it’s a disservice to even learn them.
Imo
I don’t think center ball shots with theoretical ghost ball are useful at all, even as a starting reference. They are so far removed from actual shots, that I believe it’s a disservice to even learn them.
Imo
Systems have their place, but as stated above, they are only good for getting you in the ballpark, none of them can be accurate. They get you close when you don't see or know the shot, which is helpful for getting the subconscious trained quicker.
A secondary benefit is that they focus the conscious mind, allowing the subconscious to more easily do its job.
A secondary benefit is that they focus the conscious mind, allowing the subconscious to more easily do its job.
Speak for yourself, i only have 37 stroke issues.
Here is one of my older videos. The sound quality is terrible, but it's not a bad video for demonstrating fractional aiming from half-table distance...
When people have a great, straight stroke, they can self-correct aim, yes, for most shots (some concepts are needed to correct for speed, throw, english . . . )
In addition, I've had to tell a surprising amount of students aim "systems" like "stop aiming at the left side of the pocket when cutting from the right and vice versa, all balls should go center of pocket unless you're cheating a pocket . . . ".
It depends on the definition of "aim" or "aim method", I think.
I agree on the second, disagree on the first. I use several systems (depending on which one(s) floats your boat) that do wonders for a lot of people.
Depends what you call a "system", I know table runners whose "system" is "aim full or half, then subconsciously adjust . . . if that's a system, they can run out from many positions.
I think my point was more or less relating that after you’ve reached a basic level of proficiency you should have a grasp of aiming point, it’s really not too hard to discern.
Yet inevitably their games plateau and they start looking at “aiming systems” or “low deflection shafts”, etc. as some magical panacea that will stop these misses allowing them to run racks and improve their games when the truth is most misses are due to flawed fundamentals and strokes about 98% of the time. When shortstop or above players miss you never hear them say “wow I really aimed that badly”. I truly think these “systems” keep more players back rather than improving them.
oscargrouch
Active member
I posit that anyone who doesn't see the aim naturally will be even more challenged to know the fraction, or a-b-c, or which part of the ferrule, or where on the cue ball to where on the object ball, etc...
So, in other words, you don't know what there IS to know and how it's applied. Not very much of anything is natural in the beginning or until it's learned, practiced, used under the gun, and ingrained. It applies to all sports.
Aiming naturally for a beginner or even mid-level player doesn't mean it's correct and maximizing results.
Or the fact they are attempting to execute the highly-unlikely.