Simple way to prove ( to yourself) if aiming system works. To keep it simple let’s disregard deflection and all that jazz. Basically use a cranfield arrow or some reinforcements as a ghostball. Set it up accurately so if you aim cb at that spot the shot goes. Then basically use your system. If it leads you to that exact aim spot everytime then ( to me) your method works. If not ....
Proof of method
- Thread starter medallio
- Start date
But most aim methods don't use a ghostball. A laser at the contact point might be better.
How would you know if your CB contact point is aimed at the OB contact point? Aiming centerball at a visible ghostball center gives visible confirmation. Contact point doesn't.
pj
chgo
Interesting test... but I think a more accurate way to say this would be "to prove you and your aiming system work together". No aiming system "takes you" to the final aim line - you do that with the help of the system.
pj
chgo
Yes they work in conjunction but I’m just saying that with cte or poolology or similar systems you’ll know if it puts you where you need to be. Of course you have to cue straight as well or trouble ensues. I can’t put it into words very well but ultimately it’s spatial perception as well. I know aiming while standing is good but for each of us there is a certain head/eye position that tells our brain the shot is on. Some people have this spatial awareness more than others
I think what medallio is saying would work to a degree. He didn't say to use ghost ball, he said to put a hole reinforcer on the cloth at the ghost ball position, of course with a slight overcut to account for throw. That reinforcer will tell you if your aiming method gets you on the shot line. Of course one problem is that putting the hole reinforcer there provides a target, and subjective systems like pivoting allow you to pivot until it "looks right." The hole reinforcer then simply becomes the target, at least subconsciously.
I think it would work better for Poolology. In that case you are as close as any system can get to pure objective aiming, IMO, but even then there is a reinforcer on the cloth.
Why not just shoot the ball? If it goes into the pocket then whatever you are doing, or think you are doing, is working. After all that is the goal.
Because...
Seems like a good idea to me. Naturally you also have to be able to actually shoot the ball into the pocket before you are done.
- 1. It should save a lot of time since you don't have to repeatedly setup the same shot.
- 2. It removes the variables related to stroke, etc.
Seems like a good idea to me. Naturally you also have to be able to actually shoot the ball into the pocket before you are done.
I didn't say contact point aiming is objective, it's subjective, but many players use it as a point of reference. There are aim trainers that mark the cp, others that mark the ghostball point.
Except the thread is about confirming your aim.
pj <- hence the title: "Proof of method"
chgo
I disagree.
Most use the ghost ball.
Even in snooker.
All other systems that claim they do not visualize the two balls colliding are suspicious to me .
When you've played the game long enough, you start getting the visual of the two balls colliding. That's why often when you are down, the shot might not look right and you have to get up or make little adjustments.
And I'd like any system to prove that you do not have to use judgment when using spin. Be it on throw or cue ball squirt .
Never mind that no aiming system tells you where the cue ball goes. You will have visualize the tangent line on most shots and you will have to use judgment.
Judgment equals feel.
Some ( well, a lot of them actually) claim their system eliminates the feel.
Judgment is feel.
The contact of the tip to the ball, the spin, the swerve or deflection or both.
Never mind that many systemers deny they don't visualize the two balls colliding.
In pool jargon "feel" is both visual and physical - it's your judgment of when your aim and your stroke "feel" right, whether or not you use a system.
Unfortunately, it's also why a "proof of method" can't prove much.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Joey, my man......
If you were standing on the sidewalk with a friend and he pointed his arm and finger and said this: "Do you see the STOP sign about 40 yards ahead of us on the right side of the street?"
What would you do? You'd look right in the direction he was pointing and immediately lock in on the red sign with white letters.
Would you have to look up and down? How about back and forth from side to side guessing if it was the sign or not? Answer: neither, your eyes would immediately lock into the stop sign at the corner.
That's what a good aiming system does IF you have one and know how to use it. There exists more than one system that can do that, you know
What do some players say, "I just SEE the shot"? Their eyes are telling them what to do regardless of how they end up doing it. More than likely their eyes are in position SEEING it and their body follows by getting down into it for the stroke. (Some of us just can't seem to visualize as well as others so we employ the aid of an aiming system so we too can SEE THE SHOT correctly)
Those players who SEE THE SHOT easily without an aiming aid are not getting down first and then fidgeting the feet, body, head and vision to guess or second guess themselves. That's the way hacks play.
Pool is a visual game...the eyes lead and the body follows.
"Feel" is something that is best utilized in the bedroom, in my opinion. (which, of course at my age now, is purely academic)
Thank you for your interest.
:smile:
Right and some argue about this system where instead of seeing the shot line in a straight line, you start from the outside then pivot in to the center .
And that includes dead straight in shots.
Those who see the shot are plentiful. And they've never heard of esoteric aiming systems .
I'd like to see that 100% visualization of deflection, swerve and throw.
And that never changes in different cloth, shaft, tip, conditions and balls.
Never mind the masse shots.
Last edited:
I follow. But the purpose of the laser IMO isn't to prove the validity of the aim method employed but whether the person is seeing what they're aimed at precisely. This would then help stroke at the intended target to prove or disprove the aim method.