New aiming systems...

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
Not that it’s easy to visualize, but Joe Tucker’s contact point system can be fine grained enough to define all cut angles. His system uses ten segments, but once you look at the system, you can easily see how you can look at the balls with points rather than segments. But segments are easier to present the system.

I don’t use Joe Tucker’s system, but it’s out there.
 
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:)
If I cared about it that much, I'd just call BS on pretty much all of that adjustment crap for the perfect shot. To start with where does a perfect shot go, center pocket? Why. In the pocket is all that matters. Look, most tables the pocket sizes average about 2 times the width of the diameter of the balls,,,, there is most of your compensation. Adjusting aim on the ball every time you move your tip 1/3"" is pretty much bull. Sounds good if you have something to market I guess, but fact is most people can't aim that accurately anyway.
 
If I cared about it that much, I'd just call BS on pretty much all of that adjustment crap for the perfect shot. To start with where does a perfect shot go, center pocket? Why. In the pocket is all that matters. Look, most tables the pocket sizes average about 2 times the width of the diameter of the balls,,,, there is most of your compensation. Adjusting aim on the ball every time you move your tip 1/3"" is pretty much bull. Sounds good if you have something to market I guess, but fact is most people can't aim that accurately anyway.
You can look at center pocket as a percentage thing. IOW most likely to drop. It becomes second nature.
The fudge aiming that most do can be a little ass backwards if they don't first identify WTF they're shooting at - what the geometry is for. :D
 
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
Congrats PJ, I had you in the top 10 responses in order. After all ,it is an aiming thread! :p:rolleyes::alien:
 
I don't think any aiming system works at any level without "incorporating elements outside of that system".
What are the elements outside of the system that do it? If you use an element or elements outside of the system often enough for specific cut angles and make note of what it is, wouldn't it become a part of the system? Correct answer is "yes".
No system is fine grained enough to define all cut angles (much less cover all the physical variables) without "user input" from the beginning.
The beginning of each shot is when user input IS applied and why some methods are superior to others. That is unless the user just doesn't grasp or understand what the system is designed to do and how to perform it.
Who teaches "user input" and what goes into it that supersedes how the system is to be visualized and performed?
 
Last edited:
Not that it’s easy to visualize, but Joe Tucker’s contact point system can be fine grained enough to define all cut angles. His system uses ten segments, but once you look at the system, you can easily see how you can look at the balls with points rather than segments. But segments are easier to present the system.

I don’t use Joe Tucker’s system, but it’s out there.
Absolutely! I had multiple in person lessons from Joe that weren't short little stints. Each were almost all-day lessons. IF somebody comes away from all of that and still has to use "feel", they aren't an "A" STUDENT that absorbed everything being
taught or had the physical/visual coordination to get the body in the right place to address the shot accurately and then stroke straight. Not enough is emphasized, taught, and ingrained with body, head, and eyes positions. Do all of that deliberately and correctly and "FEEL" is out the window and a thing of the past. It applies to all systems.
 
Tall players have a better view for sure. I think that the seeing part is just a matter of eye training - the table, stick and player to the painters canvas and brush.
Mosconi wasn't tall nor Efren. But I think what you said is valid if a person of any height "stands tall" when approaching each shot and takes the entire picture in before getting down into the stance for stroking. Then you simply drop into it without any feet, body, head manipulations to throw the "picture" out of whack causing self-doubt and adjustments.

I can't play golf worth a damn, but I enjoy watching the pro tournaments on TV. Every single PGA pro is very deliberate before each shot taken from tee through green by getting behind the ball lined up to their target and then walking right into it for the setup to swing the club. There's no fidgeting or shuffling around once they're over the ball. They "waggle" the club to stay loose but that's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
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:)
Did you ever hear about how controlling the speed of the CB and planning for angles two or three balls ahead is the way to strategize for position? Top pro players playing 9-ball usually see the desired position of the CB for all balls on the table before even taking the first shot. Can you do that? I can't which is why I'm not a pro.
 
Did you ever hear about how controlling the speed of the CB and planning for angles two or three balls ahead is the way to strategize for position? Top pro players playing 9-ball usually see the desired position of the CB for all balls on the table before even taking the first shot. Can you do that? I can't which is why I'm not a pro.
Here's a great example of how a top pro player "thinks" his way around the table for angles and speed. If you feel like a mental midget after this, I already beat you to the punch.

 
Did you ever hear about how controlling the speed of the CB and planning for angles two or three balls ahead is the way to strategize for position? Top pro players playing 9-ball usually see the desired position of the CB for all balls on the table before even taking the first shot. Can you do that? I can't which is why I'm not a pro.
Yes, I can do that, and I do when I bear down. I plan the entire rack, including angles, cb landing spot, etc. However, often times I don’t want to think that hard though and get lazy.

I don't see what that has to do with my post.
 
Yes, I can do that, and I do when I bear down. I plan the entire rack, including angles, cb landing spot, etc. However, often times I don’t want to think that hard though and get lazy.
You must have one helluva Fargo rating and tournament wins under your belt.
I don't see what that has to do with my post.
When did you ever see a thread or posts follow a straight line and not take twists and turns on this forum or subforums?
 
Back
Top