What do you aim at?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
It was a reply to Fred. He posted that the skeptics don't try these systems; or, if they do, they don't report their results back for some reason (fishy isn't it?). I used your words to contextualize my reply, ...... smartass.BRKNRUN said:
Let me ask, do you adjust your aim for the between angles in the Houle system you mentioned?
drivermaker
Banned
Skeezicks said:It was a reply to Fred. He posted that the skeptics don't try these systems; or, if they do, they don't report their results back for some reason (fishy isn't it?). I used your words to contextualize my reply, ...... smartass.
Let me ask, do you adjust your aim for the between angles in the Houle system you mentioned?
Personally, I don't run around the table with a protractor. What in-between angles are you talking about and how do you calculate them?
drivermaker
Banned
I'd like to give big time kudos to Mike Howerton on this thread. I don't know how in the hell he did it or what he did, but he resurrected it after deletion and cleaned up all of the worthless posts. This thread had a lot of great information and exchange of ideas. I only regret that I contributed to some of the crap also, in addition to the good. However, he totally eradicated the primary disease...Julie Gerberding, head of the CDC in Atlanta would definitely be proud!
drivermaker said:
Yes...tap tap tap...
On a related note....I was going over some of these posts and wanted to print out the Wei table diagrams listed in them. I can display the Wei table, but can't get it to print properly. Does anyone have a suggestion?
Jeff Livingston
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
That's not how I thought I respondend, but there's no use arguing that.JLW said:
Yes I do. In fact, I agree that pocketing balls on a tight pool table is tougher than pocketing balls on a looser pool table. I don't know about anyone else, but my game on a tight table, particularly my focus on shotmaking vs. position play changes dramatically depending on the looseness of the pocket.
Well, IMO, the the accuracy required on aiming in snooker has no bearing on how I aim in pool. Wasn't the question very specific? JoeyA (who is a fine player, and is on the Masters BCA List) was asking us as individuals what we aim at. When I aim, it works very well, thank you, on a pool table. Even very tight pool tables. This is very important considering the much more challenging position patterns required in , say, 9-ball. I have no comment on how to make balls on a snooker table because in general, I don't play snooker.
That is, I still don't understand why anyone thinks for one second that I am dismissing or even rebutting against any method that any snooker player uses. I'm not. What they do has no bearing on my system. I'm not downing their system. So, please, don't make it like I am.
Fred
P.S. I've received e-mails from people who have tried Hal's system on a snooker table and have reported success, fwiw.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
PoolBum said:
I have no idea how Ralf aims, but I'm assuming he's saying he doesn't focus a lot on the object ball like many are taught (especially ghost ballers). He has to at least acknowledge the object ball's presence, but after that, given whatever system he uses (there's an implication what he uses), he doesn't even have to look at the pocket.
Fred
drivermaker said:
Drivermaker, I was at Todd (not Tom, btw) Leveck's book site and he sells a device that appears to be some kind of protractor for coming up with the angle of the shot...May I ask if you even care about the exact degrees of angles and, if so, would such a device be worthwhile to use until one knows the exact angles by heart?
Jeff Livingston
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Skeezicks said:
I'm sorry. I read your post again. I didn't see where you mentioned a downside. I read an unfounded conjecture, but nothing else. What was the downside again?
Fred
drivermaker
Banned
chefjeff said:
It might be for you since you're into that kind of geometry thing...I'm not so I don't even know. Btw...it would probably be most applicable to his geometric aiming systems...not many of the others.
Fred Agnir said:
The last thing he looks at is the cue ball for a second or so just before he pulls the trigger. (I had to call him on other stuff and I took time to ask him about aiming based on a comment made on this forum.)
Skeezicks said:It was a reply to Fred. He posted that the skeptics don't try these systems; or, if they do, they don't report their results back for some reason (fishy isn't it?). I used your words to contextualize my reply, ...... smartass.
Let me ask, do you adjust your aim for the between angles in the Houle system you mentioned?
No, the aim is adjusted for you. The best way I can describe the system is that it is an (illusionary) system. Even though you think your aiming exactly the same....your not...as the CB moves in relation to the OB the (edge) changes, and the "actual contact points" change...(even though it seems your are aiming exactly the same.......
I've posted before that you need to at first use a "conversion process" to help you (see) that it works. You also need to actually make the call to Hal and have him go through the process and explain the illusionary part.
Keep this in mind...(Your "aim" using this system is not where the two balls are actually making contact...)
If you or anyone really wants to try this system correctly. Call Hal..
Last edited:
There were about 3 big aiming threads running altogether a week or so back. Seems a bit crazy to try to try to revive this one.
Anyway, for what it's worth, to answer a couple of un-answered queries directed at me, and to summarize what I have learned, let me say this:
I've made 3 discoveries from these threads.
1. What I called a feel aiming system, while I still believe feel plays a large part, still at its essence has an aiming system. eg. There is some methodology in what I look at, imaging, to guide my alignment and execution of shot, though mine seems more simplistic than the systems I was confronting.
2. Efren has a much better ability for aiming and potting accuracy than I imagined, based on the information that he made 3 centuries breaks in snooker in 10 or less games against the world's best players. (Quite astounding).
3. Through some practice of the aiming system as explained to me by Fred, I found it did not make the automatic alignments and compensations at various distances and angles. I have found no attraction to it as yet. I do think however I could learn to use them well enough with some practice and ADJUSTMENTS.
Summary:
I basically pot, relying on feel, using a basic aiming system. I have spent a lot of time on snooker tables in the past and have a solid stroke. I think I can pot as good as most pro pool players, if not better, when I spend a few hours a day honing my potting skills.
That said, I've got a lot to learn about 9 ball that could improve my game. For 90% of potting shots I see no reason to change my current methods as they are good enough, when practiced. Perhaps for some, using these systems can lead to higher quality play more quickly, and for some, they seem to work best. Horses for courses. We all want to find a way that works for ourselves
Anyway, for what it's worth, to answer a couple of un-answered queries directed at me, and to summarize what I have learned, let me say this:
I've made 3 discoveries from these threads.
1. What I called a feel aiming system, while I still believe feel plays a large part, still at its essence has an aiming system. eg. There is some methodology in what I look at, imaging, to guide my alignment and execution of shot, though mine seems more simplistic than the systems I was confronting.
2. Efren has a much better ability for aiming and potting accuracy than I imagined, based on the information that he made 3 centuries breaks in snooker in 10 or less games against the world's best players. (Quite astounding).
3. Through some practice of the aiming system as explained to me by Fred, I found it did not make the automatic alignments and compensations at various distances and angles. I have found no attraction to it as yet. I do think however I could learn to use them well enough with some practice and ADJUSTMENTS.
Summary:
I basically pot, relying on feel, using a basic aiming system. I have spent a lot of time on snooker tables in the past and have a solid stroke. I think I can pot as good as most pro pool players, if not better, when I spend a few hours a day honing my potting skills.
That said, I've got a lot to learn about 9 ball that could improve my game. For 90% of potting shots I see no reason to change my current methods as they are good enough, when practiced. Perhaps for some, using these systems can lead to higher quality play more quickly, and for some, they seem to work best. Horses for courses. We all want to find a way that works for ourselves
JoeyA said:I was just wondering what most of you aimed at when attempting to pocket an object ball:
The contact point on the object ball.
The whole object ball.
Lights on the object ball.
The base of the object ball.
Thanks,
JoeyA
Take 2 balls and hold them together towards a light source and you will get an idea of just how small the 'contact point" on the balls actually is. When you consider the circumference of the ball it truly demonstrates how difficult it would be to try and hit a "spot" on the ball!
Now for the good news, there are only 5 shots you need to know when aiming. When you look a the object ball you want to "cover it" with the cueball!
1.) full coverage (straight-in shot)
2.) 3/4 coverage
3.) 1/2 coverage
4.) 1/4 coverage
5.) THIN cut!
Aiming could not be easier!
8ball said:Take 2 balls and hold them together towards a light source and you will get an idea of just how small the 'contact point" on the balls actually is. When you consider the circumference of the ball it truly demonstrates how difficult it would be to try and hit a "spot" on the ball!
Now for the good news, there are only 5 shots you need to know when aiming. When you look a the object ball you want to "cover it" with the cueball!
1.) full coverage (straight-in shot)
2.) 3/4 coverage
3.) 1/2 coverage
4.) 1/4 coverage
5.) THIN cut!
Aiming could not be easier!
This is what is taught to snooker players. However there are 3 different shots under your thin cut category. So in effect there are 6 shots.
JER-MAN
Registered
CaptainJR said:
FIRST OFF THANK YOU CAPTAIN JR on behalf of all who didnt understand this till you posted it. bless you sir
Second . my self have used ghost, contact, stared at the cue ball\cue contact point after thought to be lined up(lined up using any and all methods at various times)... lined up and only focused on object ball. used 1/2 1/4 etc...
i think they all have their place.. kind of
i think after using many or a varient of any.... for a while your brain ends up aiming for you.
if you ask me its really experience that teaches you.
i remember an old documentary on visual perception that took some college quaterback and had him throw a series of passes to a reciever runnin the same pattern same distance speed etc easy nailed it every time. the strapped on his face a "periscope device" that shifted his vision literally 20 deg. made him throw the same pattern of passes and was of of course WAY OFF. After an afternoon of wearing the contraption that caused 20 deg of parralex and throwing those passes. CLICK his brain adjusted for him. he nailed every pass afterwards physically seeing 20 deg off base. his brain did it for him.
i shoot the best concentrating on the whole path of ob ball/cue ball after just referencing contact point brain kinda just does the rest. of course this keeps in mind JR's orig point re center pocket
Had the privilige to rack many many times for Rodney the Rocket Morris playin at the Ballroom on rt9 toms river nj when he visited. and one of my favorite quotes of his "any shots easy and every pocket is big if ya split the hole" said while playing on a triple shimmed table after running the 7th or 8th rack in a row"
oh sorry post is so long w long quote but felt it was necc