This Aiming System Crap is Killing Me

[JB Cases]

Keep shooting'em in, John. Keep the heat on'em. I'm all for it. Whatever works. And, you're right. Guess I'll just have to skip some threads. Curious though? Why didn't you skip this one? I posted an opinion. Period. No great info here. I just get tired of so many people trying to sound like there is an exact science to some sort of perfection in pool, disallowing the human nature of the tests. I've seen countless videos, diagrams, etc. showing how to pocket balls. And, just like you said, "I'm the one applying the heat now." Or something to that effect. Hell, in a vacuum, and with no heat, any kind of system will work.

I agree that we pick up habits. And, we can apply these good habits in the right situation. If someone can gain even a half ball from anything, I'm all for it. Learning a proper way to pocket a ball for some is different for others. But, learning the proper way and then APPLYING it is two entirely different things.

I didn't skip it because right now I am interested in the subject of aiming and the sight of yet another aiming thread is like a flame to a moth.

I don't know who is disallowing the human nature. I think everyone who supports using "non-traditional" aiming systems knows that the human being is the largest and most fragile variable in the equation.

Boro Nut wrote a scathing attack on CTE where he said one thing that holds true for EVERYONE. He said how can you misjudge where the aiming line because the balls don't move until you hit them.

This is 100% true. The balls sit there inanimate and you have to manipulate them. So whatever approach you use to do that is yours to screw up.

Dave Segal says that it's really easy to keep score in pool. Making balls is successful and not making them is not.

If I am a "system player" and I am losing more than winning because of missed balls then I have to be a complete idiot to keep going. I mean it's a pretty easy thing to figure out if something is working or not.

Personally I like to see all these various methods for aiming showing up because it does get people to examine them and some people to try them. I mean check it out - at this point we have someone working on a document that he says will explain everything regarding CTE - if it does then great and more people will be able to try it and see for themselves if it's something that they want to use. If not then people can then dismiss it and CTE will fade away.

We now have a guy who is doing a video on his version of CTE - which probably wouldn't have happened without all the discussion.

We have people watching more pool and analyzing what they see - so even if they can't figure out HOW so-and-so pro is aiming then maybe they are learning something else. Me, for example, through all this I have now learned more about Russian Pyramid, I have watched John Higgins and Ronnie O Sullivan and others in snooker, I have watched Evgeny Stalev and Warren Kiamco and picked up something from all of that.

So yeah, it's all about what is working for you. If Tony Watson comes bebopping in and tells you that he figured out the "can't miss greatest way to aim" then you are going to listen to him and not argue. You will try it out and if it clicks you will be using it. If not then you will drop it. You might think Tony is high when he starts telling you to twirl three times - close your eyes and run to the table like you're going to throw a javelin - but if he demonstrates it and starts making balls from everywhere you'll be doing your best Olympic javelin thrower impersonation trying it. Don't deny it because you know that like every pool player in the world you want the nuts. And when someone is offering the nuts you have to try them some.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

(My aiming system only works when I lift the seat.)



is deflection a factor?

Yeah, squirt! :grin-square::grin-square:

Best,
Brian kc

 

[Tramp Steamer]

LOL...Coco, you do like to stir up some $h!t. I'm really starting to enjoy all the aiming threads and the people who are tired of them doing the same thing...starting a thread about aiming. I might just go out and start dating one of my ex-wives!:grin: Rep to you Mr. Crawfish!

Hey Mik, how many ex's do you have? I've got three. Maybe we can pool our resources and make a few bucks here.
I believe the world is ready for 'DATE-AN-X'. A service for those who prefer someone with domestic experience.
Run this little jewel up the flag pole and if you like how it waves, get back to me.

 

[sausage]

the key to aiming is knowing what your cue will do after contact. that's why some players say; "play your position" when shooting the last ball on the table. if you forget to do so, you can blow it.

 

[incognito]

Some aiming systems and other systems work pretty good if you take the time to practice them and learn how to properly use them. Systems have won matches for me.

 

[cookie man]

Lenny, how about starting a new thread and explaining the method you are using -- "A Stick-Aiming Method That is Working For Me." It might click with a lot of people!

Would like to see this thread.

 

[ShootingRazbone]

I agree with both sides to an extent. If "systems" or "parts of systems" help you play better then great. What I don't agree with and I have seen this kind of thing on here for years is.....These "systems" get WAY complicated and I can't fathom in a million years how a beginner can use a "system" and have focus on the task at hand while wondering if his feet are correct and is my elbow dropping and is my stoke straight and not pumping and do I use 3 tips to the left or 3 tips to the right here I forget. Do I use bottom right here and aim 1/4 left on that line or use top left here 1/2 left on this line. Crap, I forgot to look at my pattern first. Ok, whew....now routine ...routine... what was my routine again? DAMN IT ALL!

I myself don't use any of this.... I however use "systems" for kicking...sometimes. Even then I find myself not wanting to take 10 mins. thinking ..."ok, I'm on the 4th diamond down .... 3 diamonds across minus 2 1/2 diamonds on the other side but crap I'm off the rail here 2 inches so I compensate for that and subtract 1/2 diamond here and a whole diamond there..... with running english. No thats not right ...I should have added a diamond on the other side. CRAP.... I can't do that it's a 3 rail kick which in any case I have to multiply now ....errrrrrrrrrrrrgggg

I'm just joking of course here sorry but I do think these guys make all this to much of a science project and therefor way to complicated. You don't get a Masters degree after mastering a "system" ....but i feel I should.

 

[Cameron Smith]

If you can consistently make 10 out 10 table length straight in shots, then aiming shouldn't be much of a problem.

I think what gets me is all of these incredibally complicated systems that are posted. On more than one occassion someone has posted their method and attempted to explain it leaving me more than a little stupified.

The most effective aiming system out there, happens to be a solid alignement.

 

[336Robin]

Reference Points vs Systems

Razbone,
I agree with your description of most systems. Im big on reference points they are simple give you something to work with and are extremely consistent. All that figuring sometimes takes the joy out of it for me.:thumbup:

336robin

aimisthegameinpool@yahoo.com

 

[LAlouie]

Well, somewhere along the line you have to know where to hit the object ball, and somewhere along the line your stroke has to be clean enough that the cueball goes where you aim.

Right? :wink:

 

[336Robin]

Reference Points

Yep exactly!! You see what to do and you set out to do it with a simple grooved stroke. Nothing more pure than that.

336robin:thumbup:

 

[Jaden]

you make a good point here.

I agree with both sides to an extent. If "systems" or "parts of systems" help you play better then great. What I don't agree with and I have seen this kind of thing on here for years is.....These "systems" get WAY complicated and I can't fathom in a million years how a beginner can use a "system" and have focus on the task at hand while wondering if his feet are correct and is my elbow dropping and is my stoke straight and not pumping and do I use 3 tips to the left or 3 tips to the right here I forget. Do I use bottom right here and aim 1/4 left on that line or use top left here 1/2 left on this line. Crap, I forgot to look at my pattern first. Ok, whew....now routine ...routine... what was my routine again? DAMN IT ALL!

I myself don't use any of this.... I however use "systems" for kicking...sometimes. Even then I find myself not wanting to take 10 mins. thinking ..."ok, I'm on the 4th diamond down .... 3 diamonds across minus 2 1/2 diamonds on the other side but crap I'm off the rail here 2 inches so I compensate for that and subtract 1/2 diamond here and a whole diamond there..... with running english. No thats not right ...I should have added a diamond on the other side. CRAP.... I can't do that it's a 3 rail kick which in any case I have to multiply now ....errrrrrrrrrrrrgggg

I'm just joking of course here sorry but I do think these guys make all this to much of a science project and therefor way to complicated. You don't get a Masters degree after mastering a "system" ....but i feel I should.

You make a good point about beginner's not being able to think about a lot of this stuff all at once.

That's why when I teach a true beginner how to play, I don't even let them hit balls until they've practiced fundamentals and done quite a few stroke training drills.

And aiming systems are really not geared towards beginners. The first way that a person should learn to aim as far as systems go is the ghost ball method. It's the easiest to conceptualize and to replicate for a beginner.

until someone has a good grasp of fundamentals, has a good stroke and can pocket balls, they shouldn't be thinking aboout position. once they have gotten to where they can pocket balls, then they can be taught strategies utilizing the tangent line and center CB and even follow and draw.

It's not until they get relatively good using those concepts that they should consider using side spin and all that that entails.

the more cantankerous aiming systems should be one of the last things someone learns and many times it's just going to be an exercise in learning what is available to use, because by the time they can truly understand and utilize one of those aiming systems, they really shouldn't need it.

There are tons of variations of aiming systems that utilize geometric concepts that are geometrically acurate. There are a few aiming systems that are visual based perspective based systems and then there's the good old aim and pray method.

The problem with feel based methods is that when you start getting the shanks, it's difficult to fall back on something else, because you're ONLY a feel player and that's where some of the advanced aiming systems come in. It gives someone something to fall back on to get back in stroke when they fall down for a little while. I shouldn't say advanced aiming systems, more like complex. A lot of the times, it's not that the more complex aiming systems are any better, a lot of the time, it's just that it forces a player to slow down and really think about the shot before taking it.

There are a LOT of aiming techniques, more than I know and that's for sure. I never been shown how CTE or fractional aiming works and the few attempts at explaining it I've heard (PJ) were just WRONG, there's no way that the way it was described could work for the majority of the shots. I'm sure for some people fractional aiming works well, it could be that it is perceptually based (which makes it difficult to see on paper) it could be that it just forces a player to slow down and trust instinct a little more. Our subconscious minds are capable of much more complex computations than our conscious minds are.

I get tired of these arguments because people on both sides are wrong and right. Does it make sense for everyone to use aiming systems? Yes, and No, at different stages of the development of one's game. Are aiming systems useless? Yes and No, there are times when all of the systems in the world aren't going to make a difference and times when they make all of the difference in the world.

Can any ONE person know what's going to work best for everyone? Yes, ME!!!, J.K. the answer is a resounding NO, but don't discount or knock someone for expounding on a system that works for them, and on the opposite side of the spectrum, don't act like this system or that system is the be all end all of pooldom, because whether it has helped you or not, it ISN'T.

Jaden

 

[JB Cases]

If you can consistently make 10 out 10 table length straight in shots, then aiming shouldn't be much of a problem.

I think what gets me is all of these incredibally complicated systems that are posted. On more than one occassion someone has posted their method and attempted to explain it leaving me more than a little stupified.

The most effective aiming system out there, happens to be a solid alignement.

Really? What if someone sets up incredibly solid - like a rock - has the straightest stroke in the world but each time they get down on the ball they are either a little to the left of the aiming line or a little to the right and sometimes dead on?

What will their pocketing consistency be like and how would you correct it if they were your student?

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

Pre-shot routine.

 

[predator]

Really? What if someone sets up incredibly solid - like a rock - has the straightest stroke in the world but each time they get down on the ball they are either a little to the left of the aiming line or a little to the right and sometimes dead on?

What will their pocketing consistency be like and how would you correct it if they were your student?

Such a person does not and can not exist. Give a good B player 100 attempts at long straight in shot with the object ball in the middle of the table, cueball at the last diamond and they won't even make 90. Give them the same drill on a 12ft snooker table and they'll struggle to make more than 20 or so out of 100.

Aiming is so much easier compared to actually sending the cueball where you're aiming. Most players would say the same. You probably won't agree and I can respect that.

 

[JB Cases]

Such a person does not and can not exist. Give a good B player 100 attempts at long straight in shot with the object ball in the middle of the table, cueball at the last diamond and they won't even make 90. Give them the same drill on a 12ft snooker table and they'll struggle to make more than 20 or so out of 100.

Aiming is so much easier compared to actually sending the cueball where you're aiming. Most players would say the same. You probably won't agree and I can respect that.

I don't understand. You are saying that it's impossible for a person to have great fundamentals but also be unable to line up correctly on the aiming line each time?

You seem to be saying that a person can't hit the ball straight. That's not the issue. The issue is whether they even get into the right line to make the ball. What they do once down on that line is another issue.

I contend that aiming is the NUMBER ONE thing that people have to master in order to move on to everything else. You have to be able to get down on the right line in order to have any chance whatsoever to hit the ball to any given spot.

You can teach stroke technique and stance and give someone the best fundamentals and they will be missing a lot of balls if they don't learn to aim.

Hence, my question still stands.

If you have a player whose fundamentals are rock solid but they miss a lot BECAUSE they don't get down on the right line. In other words they are shooting the cueball straight ahead but into the wrong spot what will you do to correct that problem?

 

[Cameron Smith]

Really? What if someone sets up incredibly solid - like a rock - has the straightest stroke in the world but each time they get down on the ball they are either a little to the left of the aiming line or a little to the right and sometimes dead on?

What will their pocketing consistency be like and how would you correct it if they were your student?

If that was the case they wouldn't be making 10 out of 10 long straight ins.

But I typically would look at their stance, either they aren't setting up on the line, or perhaps their body is in the way of the cue. So adjusting the stance can do wonders.

They could be setting up too close to the table, or aiming too close. I like to stand about 3-4 four feet back when thinking or lining up. As a rule of thumb, every table gives a shadow that extends roughly 2-3 feet from the table, so I like to line up standing outside the shadow, and shoot within it. It's easier to see the angle standing farther back, I think because you get both balls and the pocket in your immediate line of sight.

And of course as Politesniper mentioned, it may be a pre-shot routine thing. If they are setting up to the right or left every time, they can't be setting up the same way every time.

I don't think aiming systems are useless, they are a good teaching tool. But I believe in letting your subconcious do most of the work once you learn the angles.

 

[JB Cases]

If that was the case they wouldn't be making 10 out of 10 long straight ins.

But I typically would look at their stance, either they aren't setting up on the line, or perhaps their body is in the way of the cue. So adjusting the stance can do wonders.

They could be setting up too close to the table, or aiming too close. I like to stand about 3-4 four feet back when thinking or lining up. As a rule of thumb, every table gives a shadow that extends roughly 2-3 feet from the table, so I like to line up standing outside the shadow, and shoot within it. It's easier to see the angle standing farther back, I think because you get both balls and the pocket in your immediate line of sight.

And of course as Politesniper mentioned, it may be a pre-shot routine thing. If they are setting up to the right or left every time, they can't be setting up the same way every time.

I don't think aiming systems are useless, they are a good teaching tool. But I believe in letting your subconcious do most of the work once you learn the angles.

Actually they could be setting up the same way every time. It is entirely possible that a person can see the perfect aiming line for every cut shot to the right and not see it for every cut shot to the left. It's possible that a person can see the balls clear and sharp at six feet and those same balls are fuzzy and unclear at three feet.

No matter what the player must AIM somehow. They must pick a line and get down on it whether that line is right or wrong.

As for the idea that a person who makes ten straight in shots in a row shouldn't have any problem with aiming.....I disagree with that entirely.

There once was a guy who would win a lot of money betting you that he wouldn't miss 5 spot shots out of a hundred. Then when you lost that bet he'd bet you more money that he wound't miss 5 out of a thousand. He could shoot spot shots all day. But move the object ball anywhere else and his make percentage goes in the toilet. He wasn't known as a good player but he could nail those spot shots.

I am 100% confident that I can train a raw beginner to make straight in shots and satisfy your 10 for 10 proposition. I won't allow them to learn cut shots just the straight ins. As a hypothetical if I did that and they were able to do your 10 for 10 straight ins what do you think that their percentages would then be on cut shots?

By the way - there is a system for straight in shots (A couple of them actually) that is the dead nuts.

 

[JB Cases]

Pre-shot routine.

Yep - mine is line up the Center to the Edge - bring the cue back to the cue ball's edge - pivot to center while bringing my bridge hand down on the line - set my spin using Back Hand English - take some practice strokes and shoot.

Works great.

 

[Mikjary]

There once was a guy who would win a lot of money betting you that he wouldn't miss 5 spot shots out of a hundred. Then when you lost that bet he'd bet you more money that he wound't miss 5 out of a thousand. He could shoot spot shots all day. But move the object ball anywhere else and his make percentage goes in the toilet. He wasn't known as a good player but he could nail those spot shots.

I am 100% confident that I can train a raw beginner to make straight in shots and satisfy your 10 for 10 proposition. I won't allow them to learn cut shots just the straight ins. As a hypothetical if I did that and they were able to do your 10 for 10 straight ins what do you think that their percentages would then be on cut shots?

By the way - there is a system for straight in shots (A couple of them actually) that is the dead nuts.

Fact. I know the guy.