solidifying vision fundamentals/the eyes

[Bob Jewett]

... Can you please elaborate and provide supporting evidence that GB is limiting? ....

There are two major limitations.

First, it seems to be very hard for some people to visualize the ghost ball. Maybe it's just a matter of more practice. To the extent that I use the ghost ball it is more a "feeling of fullness" than an image of a ball appearing next to the object ball. I think Joe Davis used the same method.

Second, the simplest ghost ball idea -- lining up the centers to the center of the pocket -- is wrong because of throw. That has to be compensated either by feel or subconsciously or with an explicit correction. What I call the "compensated ghost ball" moves the ghost ball slightly to adjust for the expected throw. By its definition, the compensated ghost ball is exact.

 

[Dan White]

Like pretty much every aiming method .

pj
chgo

 

[dquarasr]

There are two major limitations.

First, it seems to be very hard for some people to visualize the ghost ball. Maybe it's just a matter of more practice. To the extent that I use the ghost ball it is more a "feeling of fullness" than an image of a ball appearing next to the object ball. I think Joe Davis used the same method.

Second, the simplest ghost ball idea -- lining up the centers to the center of the pocket -- is wrong because of throw. That has to be compensated either by feel or subconsciously or with an explicit correction. What I call the "compensated ghost ball" moves the ghost ball slightly to adjust for the expected throw. By its definition, the compensated ghost ball is exact.

Yes, understood. I use GB but have learned how to compensate via repetition.

For instance, in league at the pool hall, I inexplicably kept missing 30° cuts (sometimes maddeningly on money balls). Finally it hit me: I clean my table and pool balls much more frequently than at the hall, so the hall has much more throw. Once I figured that out, I had way fewer misses on seemingly easy shots.

 

[sparkle84]

I’ve noticed that some of the best shooters, e.g. Gorst and Filler, are very deliberate transitioning from standing to crouching with respect to bringing the cue and head down on the shot line. I try to emulate that, so my perspective seems not to change much if I am deliberate.




Can you please elaborate and provide supporting evidence that GB is limiting? I understood that many highly accomplished pros use GB. (No, Fran, I cannot name them offhand so please don’t ask me to.). I seem to have no trouble using GB and “seeing” the shot. Execution with respect to delivering the cue is always a work in progress, but not aiming so much.

You're not a beginning player. The GB method is good for teaching a rank beginner the concept of aiming. Forgetting about their other obvious limitations for the moment, it's a way for them to start understanding how to make a ball. If they hit that spot then sometimes they'll make the ball. Without that knowledge, some people just can't grasp that concept on their own and may tend to aim in such a way that they miss by 2 feet. Most people, once they're shown this, have a better understanding of what they have to do to make a ball. They can't do it yet but at least they have something to work towards.
This is not the situation you're currently in.


As to it's limitations the main one would be what PJ mentioned, CIT. You're on here quite a bit and seem to be a student of the game so I kind of assumed you were familiar with CIT and that's why I asked for clarification of your previous post (#6).
Most all cut shots sometimes require adjustments. It could be speed, or English, or aim, sometimes all three. Sometimes things will cancel each other out and you can aim true. You can't just aim at the middle of the GB and expect it to work as it should. It just doesn't work that way.
Which leads to another point. How do you know exactly where the GB center is? Unless someone's holding a ball there it's not that easy. When it's a fairly straight shot it may be easy. Once the cut is bigger and/or there's some distance it gets much harder very quickly. If the OB is 3+ feet from the pocket and it's a 40* cut it's virtually impossible to know where the center is when you're down on the shot. Considering the described shot if your contact point is even 1/16" off you are going to miss. Anyway, that's just a quick sample of reasons why the GB is not all that accurate in a lot of cases.
Not trying to discourage you because you've made good progress but this game is hard. As you get better and gain more knowledge it will get a little easier. One reason it's hard is because of uncertainty regarding the choice of options facing you in any given situation. More knowledge = less choices = better choices.
As to pros using GB I've heard a number of them state that's how they learned to aim when they started playing. I can't recall anyone saying they use it now although there's a few maybe. The majority of pros will say they don't use an aiming system at all. Some do but I don't think it's very many. Most will tell you that it's about 10th on the list of things they're thinking about when considering a shot.

 

[dquarasr]

You're not a beginning player. The GB method is good for teaching a rank beginner the concept of aiming. Forgetting about their other obvious limitations for the moment, it's a way for them to start understanding how to make a ball. If they hit that spot then sometimes they'll make the ball. Without that knowledge, some people just can't grasp that concept on their own and may tend to aim in such a way that they miss by 2 feet. Most people, once they're shown this, have a better understanding of what they have to do to make a ball. They can't do it yet but at least they have something to work towards.
This is not the situation you're currently in.


As to it's limitations the main one would be what PJ mentioned, CIT. You're on here quite a bit and seem to be a student of the game so I kind of assumed you were familiar with CIT and that's why I asked for clarification of your previous post (#6).
Most all cut shots sometimes require adjustments. It could be speed, or English, or aim, sometimes all three. Sometimes things will cancel each other out and you can aim true. You can't just aim at the middle of the GB and expect it to work as it should. It just doesn't work that way.
Which leads to another point. How do you know exactly where the GB center is? Unless someone's holding a ball there it's not that easy. When it's a fairly straight shot it may be easy. Once the cut is bigger and/or there's some distance it gets much harder very quickly. If the OB is 3+ feet from the pocket and it's a 40* cut it's virtually impossible to know where the center is when you're down on the shot. Considering the described shot if your contact point is even 1/16" off you are going to miss. Anyway, that's just a quick sample of reasons why the GB is not all that accurate in a lot of cases.
Not trying to discourage you because you've made good progress but this game is hard. As you get better and gain more knowledge it will get a little easier. One reason it's hard is because of uncertainty regarding the choice of options facing you in any given situation. More knowledge = less choices = better choices.
As to pros using GB I've heard a number of them state that's how they learned to aim when they started playing. I can't recall anyone saying they use it now although there's a few maybe. The majority of pros will say they don't use an aiming system at all. Some do but I don't think it's very many. Most will tell you that it's about 10th on the list of things they're thinking about when considering a shot.

Got it.

I will admit that GB is an approximation and that through repetition one can learn the adjustments required for throw. I dunno, but when I am shooting well, shots simply look right. I honestly cannot tell you if I am aiming at the GB center. I just know that on many shots I know where to hit the CB to make the OB, and yes, it varies with shot speed. I’ll use outside more for slower shots, or a larger cut angle. For higher speeds, it’s more the GB center.

I can’t say I’m 100% accurate (can anyone? Um, no) but I’m getting there. I suppose this is the “feel” we talk about here: unthinkingly knowing how to adjust without a conscious decision.

Please don’t take this as arrogance on my part. I still struggle terribly at times. But it’s mostly cue delivery than aiming that bites me when I start getting “in my own head” and start thinking about the mechanics of a shot.

All that said, as I progress I WILL look into alternative methods. But for me, for now, GB with the appropriate adjustments, work.

I look forward to the next jump in knowledge and acquisition of skills.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...it seems to be very hard for some people to visualize the ghost ball.

I use a version of ghost ball (although I never think of it that way or try to visualize a ghost ball): I just "feel" the distance from the OB contact point (which I visualize pretty easily) to where I aim the CB's center for the needed cut angle (= aiming at "compensated" ghost ball center). Not for everybody, but what is?

pj
chgo

 

[tomatoshooter]

But it’s mostly cue delivery than aiming that bites me when I start getting “in my own head” and start thinking about the mechanics of a shot.

I think Mark Wilson said most misses are from failing to deliver the cue ball accurately, not poor aiming.

 

[evergruven]

I think Mark Wilson said most misses are from failing to deliver the cue ball accurately, not poor aiming.

since I started really caring about pool this has been my instinct..think why I've paid significantly more attention to this forum than the aiming joint

 

[Dan White]

since I started really caring about pool this has been my instinct..think why I've paid significantly more attention to this forum than the aiming joint

It's not even close. IMO it's like 10% aim at most and 90% everything else.

 

[FranCrimi]

thanks fran. I'd like to feel comfortable enough to just go down on the shot with my feet and all right ready to go
I just rarely feel that right out the gate..and if it doesn't feel right, I move. but I agree it's a good thing to strive for
and I do aim standing up, but when I get down on the shot, the perspective is different- it's a different view
I think part of the reason I move around a bit is because I've got new information, so I move with that new info.
but obviously I don't *need* to do what I'm doing- I just need to figure out how to get what I need without doing it
I'm going to try to do a better job of aiming while standing up, try some different things and see what happens-

Then why don't the pros and high level players bob up and down as they get set in their positions? Are they getting new information also, but not doing anything about it?

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Matt, you know I appreciate the time you spent with me a few months ago, and again, I thank you for it, but I'll have to offer a different opinion.

While I understand that this alignment and aiming technique works for some of your students, I tried this and found that for me, at least, it only worked for very shallow angle shots.

I use ghost ball to aim. I find that aligning to the exact shot line, that is, center of the CB to the center of the ghost ball (NOT the center of the OB), results in NO need to make any adjustments to reconcile the difference between the CB center-to-OB center and the shot line. If I am off, and I cannot remedy the cue position with extremely small micro-adjustments, I'll stand back up and start over. Even then, I try to never need any micro-adjustments.

I hope I explained that clearly.

Disclaimer: APA SL6/5 in 8/9, and NOT an instructor.

I think we agree, not disagree. For players using ghost ball, you stand on the line of centers to take your first look at where the ghost ball lies. Then you step into your stance as usual and reacquire the ghost ball in sighting on the final stance.

Besides aim, this also gives you an absolute starting position for the final stance.

Please note: I'm not talking about taking a stance on the line of centers, I'm talking about the best possible visual reference to begin your (anyone's) process. You can give a cue stick to someone who's never played pool before, and on an extreme cut angle where they cannot possibly place their head and arm on the line from the o.b. to the target pocket, without saying a word to them, they will get behind the line of centers then begin to aim the c.b. at the o.b.

Where players compromise aim is in standing with a foot forward, air stroking, anxious to shoot, before they get their aim bearings. The pros usually stand this way while aiming with the added tools of having HAMB and having great, level strokes and etc. The typical student or amateur would increase their shotmaking significantly by standing perfectly perpendicular to the line of centers before every cut shot.

 

[Imac007]

Ok Thanks, but I was just looking for something more clear, like a diagram of cut angles at the same distance to the pocket, and the amount of throw for soft, medium and hard hits on those angles. Once we have that information, then we can create a formula for aim and/or side spin adjustments.

I think you would find this useful. https://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/sept06.pdf

 

[FranCrimi]

I think you would find this useful. https://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/sept06.pdf
View attachment 695774

So what would be the aim adjustment on the cb for a player shooting a 35 degree angle shot at medium speed, with a 3 ft. distance to the pocket? What would be the aim adjustment for the same shot at a 4 ft distance to the pocket?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So what would be the aim adjustment on the cb for a player shooting a 35 degree angle shot at medium speed, with a 3 ft. distance to the pocket? What would be the aim adjustment for the same shot at a 4 ft distance to the pocket?

If "the same shot" means they're both 35-degree cuts, I think the aim adjustment is the same.

pj
chgo

 

[FranCrimi]

If "the same shot" means they're both 35-degree cuts, I think the aim adjustment is the same.

pj
chgo

Interesting. Regardless of the distance to the pocket? So let's say you're right in that the aim adjustment would be the same, regardless of the distance to the pocket --- what IS the aim adjustment for a 35 degree cut angle executed at medium speed?

 

[Renegade_56]

Yes, that visualized cue ball is the "ghost ball".

But to be really accurate for cut shots, it usually has to be lined up slightly off the OB/pocket line to account for throw.

pj
chgo

So you aim at the center of a ball that isn't there, to slightly miss the pocket, if you barely miss the center of the ball that isn't there. I always wondered how that went. Thanks.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Interesting. Regardless of the distance to the pocket?

Here are two balls at different distances from the pocket, with yellow lines showing the (estimated) throw that's produced by a 35-degree cut to the right. Hopefully this makes it clear that, even though the two shots throw to different locations, the aim (angle) correction is the same.

So let's say you're right in that the aim adjustment would be the same, regardless of the distance to the pocket --- what IS the aim adjustment for a 35 degree cut angle executed at medium speed?

Ya got me - I do it by feel.

pj
chgo

 

[FranCrimi]

Here are two balls at different distances from the pocket, with yellow lines showing the (estimated) throw that's produced by a 35-degree cut to the right. Hopefully this makes it clear that, even though the two shots throw to different locations, the aim (angle) correction is the same.


View attachment 695788

Ya got me - I do it by feel.

pj
chgo

My point is that the CIT studies are all well and good, but then something useful has to come of them to pass along to players, or the studies will wind up in some publication or journal somewhere with the ones benefiting the most being the authors. How beneficial would it be to give a player a guideline? For example: For cut angles between 35 and 40 degrees shot at medium speed (which can be defined), X aim adjustment would be applicable. Between 40 and 45 degrees at medium speed, Y aim adjustment would be applicable, and so-on.

Of course, it's always just going to be a guide, but that's the kind of thing that's really helpful to players --- Something they can actually use.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

My point is that the CIT studies are all well and good, but then something useful has to come of them to pass along to players, or the studies will wind up in some publication or journal somewhere with the ones benefiting the most being the authors. How beneficial would it be to give a player a guideline? For example: For cut angles between 35 and 40 degrees shot at medium speed (which can be defined), X aim adjustment would be applicable. Between 40 and 45 degrees at medium speed, Y aim adjustment would be applicable, and so-on.

Of course, it's always just going to be a guide, but that's the kind of thing that's really helpful to players --- Something they can actually use.

I'm sure Dave and/or Bob can do that (if they haven't already) - I'd be interested just out of nerd curiosity, but I bet it could also be helpful for players, as you say.

pj
chgo

 

[tomatoshooter]

Interesting. Regardless of the distance to the pocket? So let's say you're right in that the aim adjustment would be the same, regardless of the distance to the pocket --- what IS the aim adjustment for a 35 degree cut angle executed at medium speed?

It may be an optical illusion, but on long thin cuts down the long rail, past the side pocket, it looks like the object ball swerves towards the rail slightly from cut induced spin, adding to the throw.