The only video you need about aiming.

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
Consider yourself on the list. Have fun wasting the next 20 years on AZ bitching about something you know nothing about. That is what people on the list do.

I would like for my name to be removed from the list please. Lol. I can't imagine wasting 20yrs. If you need a written request to remove me from the list I can do that. Thanks.
 

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
I would like for my name to be removed from the list please. Lol. I can't imagine wasting 20yrs. If you need a written request to remove me from the list I can do that. Thanks.
Pro tip for you Brian.

There is no actual list. Just like there is no objective way to aim all pool shots. These things don't exist.
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I really like at around 7:25 him saying pivoting is detrimental after being down on the shot. Someone please tell BUSTI he can't line up low left and pivot on his last stroke to hit the cue ball. It's detrimental to his game. Imagine what he could have accomplished if he never did that.
I’ll let him know next time we run into each other at the hall. ;)
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Pro tip for you Brian.

There is no actual list. Just like there is no objective way to aim all pool shots. These things don't exist.
There is a list. It only has enough people on it to fill a short bus, you know like the one you used to ride to school in.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
Pro tip for you Brian.

There is no actual list. Just like there is no objective way to aim all pool shots. These things don't exist.

I agree that learning how to do any skill is a subjective process. But I also know that there are objective methods or tools that can be used to help speed up the learning process.

The final result, how well we perform the skill, requires consciously repeating the skill over and over and over, either through subjective methods (trial and error) or objective methods (no trial and error), or a mix of both, considering how "objective" methods aren't truly objective because we aren't robots.

As far as the end result goes, the only difference is how long it takes for conscious repetition to transfer the performance of the skill to the subconscious region of the brain.

If someone wants to learn how to play a guitar, he or she could use trial and error to learn the chords. That would be very subjective and would require a little musical knowledge and an excellent ear for musical tones. Or they could use a more objective method, like looking at a chord diagram that shows which strings should be played and on which frets their fingers should be placed. There is still an element of subjectivity because there are options as far as which finger goes where in order to build any particular chord. Still, using an objective "cheat sheet" would surely be a quicker learning method than relying solely on the subjectivity of trial and error.

The same learning principles can be applied to aiming pool shots.
 
Last edited:

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
I agree that learning how to do any skill is a subjective process. But I also know that there are objective methods or tools that can be used to help speed up the learning process.

The final result, how well we perform the skill, requires consciously repeating the skill over and over and over, either through subjective methods (trial and error) or objective methods (no trial and error), or a mix of both, considering how "objective" methods aren't truly objective because we aren't robots.

As far as the end result goes, the only difference is how long it takes for conscious repetition to transfer the performance of the skill to the subconscious region of the brain.

If someone wants to learn how to play a guitar, he or she could use trial and error to learn the chords. That would be very subjective and would require a little musical knowledge and an excellent ear for musical tones. Or they could use a more objective method, like looking at a chord diagram that shows which strings should be played and on which frets their fingers should be placed. There is still an element of subjectivity because there are options as far as which finger goes where in order to build any particular chord. Still, using an objective "cheat sheet" would surely be a quicker learning method than relying solely on the subjectivity of trial and error.

The same learning principles can be applied to aiming pool shots.
I fail to see the analogy's connection there.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
I fail to see the analogy's connection there.

Yeah...lol....it doesn't relate to your statement that there is "no objective way to aim all pool shots". The word "all" is what makes your statement true.

Anyway, the analogy was just an example of how we learn skills quicker by incorporating some objective methods to the learning process. Like assembly instructions or a cheat sheet, or a kicking system or a banking system, or the Buddy Hall clock system, or....an aiming system that eliminates or reduces a lot of the trial and error typically associated with pure subjective learning.

I'm not getting involved anymore in the 20yr debate over whether or not CTE is objective or subjective. I believe every aiming method or system is rooted somewhat in subjective learning -- finding your own way through the process in order to discover what works best for you. In that respect, aiming pool shots seems to require a mix of methods and experience.

Ghostball users have to have enough experience to accurately visualize the ghostball. Same with contact point users and the aiming offset from the contact point. Fractional users have to have enough experience to recognize the difference between the basic fractions and when a shot is slightly thinner or thicker than one of the basic fractions. CTE users have to have the experience to know which perception to use and whether or not it's an inside or an outside pivot or sweep. All of these methods require experience. And since we aren't robots, experience is subjective. And our subjective experience is inevitably carried over or incorporated into any objective process we might be using or think we're using. So, objective method or not, aiming pool balls will always have an element of subjectivity involved.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JC

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
So much wrong here.

No aiming system has ever purported to do everything this author claims.

There is aiming and there is execution.

He made this video to knock aiming systems and made claims about what the players in the example shots were thinking without actually knowing what they were thinking.

He has no idea whether any player in his cherry picked examples was using any particular aiming system or not.

Yes aiming is done standing up. Nothing he said here invalidates any aiming system. Just another hater who doesn't understand aiming systems.

Really, he doesn't. These infographic style videos are slick but just because a video is well done doesn't mean that the information presented is correct.

He makes some good points but they really have nothing to do with aiming. For example, he uses ghost ball to illustrate because it's great for that but fails to tell users that no helpful ghost ball guide actually exists.

Then the whole quadrant approach neglects the illusions that are experienced with angle changes that make some shots harder to "see" with the contract point/ghost ball approach.

This guy talks about what aiming system users are thinking without the slightest clue about what they are thinking.

He makes claims that no aiming system user has made.

Very bad video very very very bad video.
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So much wrong here.

No aiming system has ever purported to do everything this author claims.

There is aiming and there is execution.

He made this video to knock aiming systems and made claims about what the players in the example shots were thinking without actually knowing what they were thinking.

He has no idea whether any player in his cherry picked examples was using any particular aiming system or not.

Yes aiming is done standing up. Nothing he said here invalidates any aiming system. Just another hater who doesn't understand aiming systems.

Really, he doesn't. These infographic style videos are slick but just because a video is well done doesn't mean that the information presented is correct.

He makes some good points but they really have nothing to do with aiming. For example, he uses ghost ball to illustrate because it's great for that but fails to tell users that no helpful ghost ball guide actually exists.

Then the whole quadrant approach neglects the illusions that are experienced with angle changes that make some shots harder to "see" with the contract point/ghost ball approach.

This guy talks about what aiming system users are thinking without the slightest clue about what they are thinking.

He makes claims that no aiming system user has made.

Very bad video very very very bad video.
John Barton
I do not know the "why" of any of this. I could give a flip less about the "why" of any of this. I do know, however, that when you learn to "poke your head out" and zero in on that NISL as taught in the book "Center Pocket Music", your game is going to skyrocket. That's all the "why" I care about.
Regards,
Lowenstein
CTE Book.JPG
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
John Barton
And it helps to do this to the training table....marking off the squares with a magic marker. (worry about replacing the cloth "some day")
The tougher you make that training table, the easier it'll be on good equipment/
No air conditioning, no heat, dust, crud, dirt, noise, cramped quarters, poor lighting, 4 1/4" shimmed pockets, dead rails, cheap cloth, cheap balls, cracked plastic on pockets held together with duct tape, all work together to dish out much needed PAIN in the practice arena.
Then when getting off a piece of junk like this and getting into real first class stuff it's like jumping from a VW to a Cadillac.
Pool Table with Lines #2.jpg
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yeah...lol....it doesn't relate to your statement that there is "no objective way to aim all pool shots". The word "all" is what makes your statement true.

Anyway, the analogy was just an example of how we learn skills quicker by incorporating some objective methods to the learning process. Like assembly instructions or a cheat sheet, or a kicking system or a banking system, or the Buddy Hall clock system, or....an aiming system that eliminates or reduces a lot of the trial and error typically associated with pure subjective learning.

I'm not getting involved anymore in the 20yr debate over whether or not CTE is objective or subjective. I believe every aiming method or system is rooted somewhat in subjective learning -- finding your own way through the process in order to discover what works best for you. In that respect, aiming pool shots seems to require a mix of methods and experience.

Ghostball users have to have enough experience to accurately visualize the ghostball. Same with contact point users and the aiming offset from the contact point. Fractional users have to have enough experience to recognize the difference between the basic fractions and when a shot is slightly thinner or thicker than one of the basic fractions. CTE users have to have the experience to know which perception to use and whether or not it's an inside or an outside pivot or sweep. All of these methods require experience. And since we aren't robots, experience is subjective. And our subjective experience is inevitably carried over or incorporated into any objective process we might be using or think we're using. So, objective method or not, aiming pool balls will always have an element of subjectivity involved.
Aiming is both objective and subjective. Objective of course because the targets are fixed and stationary within a framed boundary. Subjective because the shooter must rely on their particular visual acuity and experience to make a choice as to where to lay the cue down. Add to that the nuance of equipment conditions and shaft deflection and you have situations where the player MUST sometimes make their best subjective guess.

The spectrum between total subjectivity at one end and total objectivity at the other end is something that I have never seen any other prominent poster beside myself talking about.

It is my opinion and my experience that the good aiming systems that brings the user close to the objective end of the spectrum are objective enough to be described as objective without the need to say that it contains subjectivity. The more proficient that a person becomes at using such systems the less subjectivity there is in the process. To the point that a user can rightfully claim that the system they use is objective from their perspective because to them that is exactly how it feels from shot to shot.

Experience is wrongly described as subjective though. Experience can be described as building objectivity in the sense that there is hardly any human activity involving the manipulation of objects that a human does the right way the first time and every time. Only through experience and instruction or brute force trial and error does a human gain the knowledge and bodily autonomy to successfully analyze a situation and execute the correct solution consistently.

The whole point of aiming systems is to decrease subjectivity substantially. Even the guy who made the video recognized that when more accurate information/data that is available to the shooter then the shooter can use it to make an informed choice. For example the quadrant approach is information that that the video maker wants people to use in building an objective shot recognition library. He has basically created a systematic approach using lines that are easy to visually "see" based on the objects in front of the shooter.

Earlier I was watching Dennis Orcullo practice and he was doing a cut shot where he placed the ball in about a 30 degree angle and over and over he missed it by a diamond to the right and left. He would place the object ball and then place the cue ball and come into the shot from between the two balls and seemingly only be looking at the object ball as he settled on the cue ball. This was in complete contrast to how he analyzes the shot when he is competing. When competing, I am watching him as I type, he approaches the shot from a distance away from the table with cueball and object ball in view and carefully aims before taking the shot.

I submit that when practicing in this way Dennis is more interested in getting his arm loose and not really focusing on aiming. In other words he is subjectively "aiming" using the lowest form of aiming, the feel-guess, rather than a considered, focused and deliberate approach. When it matters he increases his objective focus intently and as a result his success rate goes way up. Notice I didn't say anything about Dennis using any sort of system. Just a change in consideration before shooting.
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
John Barton
And it helps to do this to the training table....marking off the squares with a magic marker. (worry about replacing the cloth "some day")
The tougher you make that training table, the easier it'll be on good equipment/
No air conditioning, no heat, dust, crud, dirt, noise, cramped quarters, poor lighting, 4 1/4" shimmed pockets, dead rails, cheap cloth, cheap balls, cracked plastic on pockets held together with duct tape, all work together to dish out much needed PAIN in the practice arena.
Then when getting off a piece of junk like this and getting into real first class stuff it's like jumping from a VW to a Cadillac.
View attachment 597037
Please don't take this as a challenge to your ideas/system but I have a question. If you get used to playing with grids, won't this be a detriment when you actually play on a non-marked table? How do you adjust to not having the table marked to clearly differentiate between shots? When you play in a place with a non-marked table your reference points don't exist. I suppose it's fine for practice and setting up certain shots but you cant become reliant on having marked grids.

I do know, however, that when you learn to "poke your head out" and zero in on that NISL as taught in the book "Center Pocket Music", your game is going to skyrocket.
There is an aiming system that I subscribe to that teaches you proper head position for each shot without any of the CTE ball relationships, so "poking your head out" isn't exclusive to CTE. You get the proper shot, tuned to your eye dominance and know how your eyes work and know you are seeing correctly.

The more proficient that a person becomes at using such systems the less subjectivity there is in the process. To the point that a user can rightfully claim that the system they use is objective from their perspective because to them that is exactly how it feels from shot to shot.
JB, respectfully, this literally describes any aiming system, even HAMB. The more you use it, the more you can rely on it, be it aiming system A, B, C, or no conscious aiming system at all.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Pro tip for you Brian.

There is no actual list. Just like there is no objective way to aim all pool shots. These things don't exist.
There are however ways to aim the majority of pool shots that are so objective that they are very close to 100% objective from the shooter's perspective.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
JB, respectfully, this literally describes any aiming system, even HAMB. The more you use it, the more you can rely on it, be it aiming system A, B, C, or no conscious aiming system at all.
I disagree for the context of the discussion. Of course you can rely on that which you have practiced to proficiency but what you cannot "rely" on is the same level of consistency from one to the other type of method.

I am constantly testing this out by shooting by "feel" versus systematic aiming. Ideally I would love to be the type of person who doesn't need to spend any time measuring the shot and could just see it. It FEELS great to simply get down and shoot but speaking only for myself, my ability to be consistently successful goes WAY DOWN very quickly when I try to shoot without using any aiming other than what feels/looks right with nothing other than maybe contact point and "shot pictures". Although I can say that "shot pictures" are, for me, kind of a really unused and in my opinion marginally useful way of "aiming".

HAMB can only be considered as reducing subjectivity in terms of muscle memory conditioning shot by shot. But where it breaks down is when the shooter is faced with conditions outside of that they have brute-force practiced to that point.

Consider this example;

you have two players who have both read Bob Byrnes Standard Book of Pool and both have been playing for six months. They both have decent fundamentals and have developed to be functionally equal. Other than that they have had no instruction, no knowledge of any "objective" aiming systems.

Player One is taught an objective aiming system for one month and develops adequate demonstrable proficiency, one with very clear aim lines/fractional perceptions. Player Two is not taught anything else and continues to practice shot by shot repetitively. At the nine month mark the two players are tested for shot making acuity using various tests with a wide variety of shots. Many of the shots are shots that neither player has actively practiced until that point.

Which of these two players is likely to score higher?

I am going to say that it will be Player One. The reason is that Player One has a way to figure out the correct aim on shots that he has not practiced. Player Two is likely to score significantly lower due to the unfamiliarity with the shots.

Ok, now what if we go another month and player two has now practiced the shots that he did poorly on. They retake the test and what is the likely outcome?

I submit that Player One is still going to score higher but that the score will be closer.

Why? Well I look at it like studying for a test by memorizing the questions and answers versus studying for a test and learning a logic system that can be applied to any question. To me a good aiming system is a logical framework that can be applied to almost any shot. So I would expect that Player One, having more experience in the application of that framework is likely to be less inclined to be influenced by concepts such as difficulty and uncertainty in the aiming. There is not likely to be a running "score" playing in that shooter's head about past success/failure percentages for any given shot they face.

Player two SHOULD score higher than they did previously but only because they practiced the shots they failed the first time. But I doubt that they can outscore Player One on that test at that point in their development.

I would even go a step further towards creating some kind of "proof" for this by making Player One take a different test where the shots are similar but slightly more "difficult" according to how we look at shot difficulty. It is my opinion that Player One would still outscore player two in this situation and be able to match their previous score or exceed it.

Conversely I think that if Player Two were given the "harder" version of the test then they would score lower than their second time with test one.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
...... If you get used to playing with grids, won't this be a detriment when you actually play on a non-marked table? How do you adjust to not having the table marked to clearly differentiate between shots? When you play in a place with a non-marked table your reference points don't exist. I suppose it's fine for practice and setting up certain shots but you cant become reliant on having marked grids.....

It's a learning tool to help the brain associate with visual information more efficiently and effectively. The same type of visual training is used by musicians. There are templates/stickers that a beginning guitatist can put on the neck of the guitar to help with recognizing and memorizing chord patterns. The same type of visual cheat sheets are available for piano keys and violin necks, where the actual notes are labeled or marked to help speed up the learning process.

Once the visual information is learned and stored away into long term memory, the visual tools or cheat sheets used to help build those associations are no longer needed.

I've gone to people's homes (pool players) that have lines and little hole reinforcement donuts all over their table for practicing and visualizing certain shots. When going to a table that doesn't have these lines or donuts, the brain can still imagine and visualize just fine, depending on how often or how well those visual practice methods/tools are used.
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Please don't take this as a challenge to your ideas/system but I have a question. If you get used to playing with grids, won't this be a detriment when you actually play on a non-marked table? How do you adjust to not having the table marked to clearly differentiate between shots? When you play in a place with a non-marked table your reference points don't exist. I suppose it's fine for practice and setting up certain shots but you cant become reliant on having marked grids.
(The marked grids have nothing to do with "differentiating between shots". That is all done with your eyes when zeroing in on the NISL)
If you believe it will or if you believe it won't....either way you are right.
 
Top