drivermaker
Banned
Fred Agnir said:
But has JoeyA been a good boy and actually called Hal while he was at the table? Well...have you JoeyA?
What do you aim at?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
But has JoeyA been a good boy and actually called Hal while he was at the table? Well...have you JoeyA?
Joe T
Well-known member
sonia said:
Hal the question was how do you aim? Not how you don’t. If you want to show people how to aim that’s great but if you have to tell lies to try and make my method of instruction look bad in order to make yours look good, that’s not great.
Just teach, unless you have some kind of proof that my method doesn’t work. Stop trying to make it look bad just to make yours look good.
If you have a set of my aiming balls you can easily look down and see the contact points are not invisible. They’re very much visible and it’s a very precise method of aim.
I don’t go around trying to bad mouth your method out of respect and I know you’ve had some success teaching it. I’m asking for the same respect.
Yours, a student must be able to recognize angles and then recall your formula as how to aim for that particular angle and it never refers to the part of the shot that does all the work, the contact point on the front of the cue ball.
No matter what method you use the ultimate goal is to get the correct part of the cue ball to touch the correct part of the object ball. I simply improve a players’ perception of those 2 spots constantly and require no angle recognition at all.
Set a ball on the middle of the end rail, place the cue ball in 9 different make able positions and you'll have to teach your students approximately 7-9 different ways to aim them. I'll teach them 1 way for all 9 shots.
I also teach;
Banks, kicks, safeties, combos and caroms all by the numbered contact points.
Where the pocket is, what angle it is, doesn’t matter.
I teach you how to find the answer (what number contact points must meet) and you do your best to connect these 2 matching points.
Hal I’m sure you’re a really smart, sweet, grumpy sum bitch and I respect your years of experience and I’m sure thru the years you’ve shot down a lot of contact point to contact point methods prior to mine with this invisible talk. But mine is new and it’s improved and is a great way to play and teach because it’s fact based, improves a players’ perception and gives the player a true answer to what is really going on.
I offered this to you before and I’ll do it again, A teaching challenge, not a shot making or playing challenge because I know I play better than anyone teaching your method but a teaching challenge to you or anyone you choose who teaches your method, against me and mine.
As Grady would say "I ain't afraid to gamble"
pete lafond said:
I agree with this. Especially the line to the pocket.
To many people stare at the object ball so hard they are not really seeing where it has to travel to. I don't really focus so much as see the whole scene from the tip, cue ball, object ball and the pocket. That's the information I need to place my cue with the right alignment.
What's the point of focusing just on the contact point when with any angled shot, you don't shoot on that line. If you do, you'll miss the shot thick. (As most beginners do). Trying focusing on the center of the ghost ball also seems rather hard and useless other than as a rough guide.
After a lot of practice and memorization of angles, you can just observe the layout and feel when you are online to send the ball into the pocket. But you need to get those angles into your eyes first, so looking from the object ball to the pocket makes a lot of sense.
Generally, when I am just warming up (even playing a match at the beginning)and not in dead punch, I aim at the object ball the same way Joe Tucker does, by aiming & imagining the correct contact point on the object ball and the respective contact point on the cue ball meeting one another.
After I am warmed up and really starting to swing it, I generally simply aim at the whole ball not concentrating on any one small, specific contact point just shooting the object ball in the hole all the while knowing that not only am I lined up correctly but that the shot looks right and that the ball is going to go into the pocket. This is when my confidence is at its highest.
Sometimes when I am playing mediocre, I will aim at the base of the object ball if it is a straight end shot. I may compliment that aiming with extending the contact line through the object ball into the widest part of the pocket but basically just visualizing the shot in different ways in order to "cinch" the ball. Also when I am playing at a mediocre level I will occasionally walk around the table and visualize a line straight through the object ball until I "know" that I will make the shot hitting the contact point on the specific spot I am looking at.
FTR, I always aim and visualize the shot happening before I lower my body to bridge up. I'm sure most people do this but I wanted to give you most of everything that I do.
I am still interested in elevating my game and will consider every aiming system that anyone currently uses. I believe that some people are better off using system A than system B because of a wide range of circustances not limited to current ability or experience.
I am interested in knowing how everyone aims because while I may not be able to use their aiming technique myself with the success I need, I may be able to give better instruction to my students by what I learn here.
Thanks again to all of you for the many great responses!
Warm Regards,
JoeyA
After I am warmed up and really starting to swing it, I generally simply aim at the whole ball not concentrating on any one small, specific contact point just shooting the object ball in the hole all the while knowing that not only am I lined up correctly but that the shot looks right and that the ball is going to go into the pocket. This is when my confidence is at its highest.
Sometimes when I am playing mediocre, I will aim at the base of the object ball if it is a straight end shot. I may compliment that aiming with extending the contact line through the object ball into the widest part of the pocket but basically just visualizing the shot in different ways in order to "cinch" the ball. Also when I am playing at a mediocre level I will occasionally walk around the table and visualize a line straight through the object ball until I "know" that I will make the shot hitting the contact point on the specific spot I am looking at.
FTR, I always aim and visualize the shot happening before I lower my body to bridge up. I'm sure most people do this but I wanted to give you most of everything that I do.
I am still interested in elevating my game and will consider every aiming system that anyone currently uses. I believe that some people are better off using system A than system B because of a wide range of circustances not limited to current ability or experience.
I am interested in knowing how everyone aims because while I may not be able to use their aiming technique myself with the success I need, I may be able to give better instruction to my students by what I learn here.
Thanks again to all of you for the many great responses!
Warm Regards,
JoeyA
Skeezicks said:
I have spoken to Hal Houle on more than one occassion and he is a very knowledgeable man and fun to talk with. I haven't had the pleasure of talking pool with Hal while at the table. (I have it from a good source that soon I will be in His Eminence's presence for a personal tutorial.) I look forward to that day.
JoeyA
JoeyA
drivermaker said:But has JoeyA been a good boy and actually called Hal while he was at the table? Well...have you JoeyA?
Can it actually be taught
I was watching the COM tapes and Mark Wilson made a comment that kind of surprised me, but made sense.
I don't remember it word for word, but he was talking about Earl's shotmaking ability.
He said something like "Earl has a uncanny accuracy in his shotmaking" then he said.."I am not sure if that can be taught"
I think that it has a lot to do with focus....
It seems like when you try a new system...at first you can't miss and think you have found the holy grail or something...after a while the novelty of the "different" system wears off and you find yourself missing the same shots you were before......
I think the "different" system caused you to raise your "focus level"
Bottom line to all this is...I think that you just need to find a "method" that allows you the "confidence" that you are aimed right.......from there its just a matter how consistently you can remain focused and execute.
I was watching the COM tapes and Mark Wilson made a comment that kind of surprised me, but made sense.
I don't remember it word for word, but he was talking about Earl's shotmaking ability.
He said something like "Earl has a uncanny accuracy in his shotmaking" then he said.."I am not sure if that can be taught"
I think that it has a lot to do with focus....
It seems like when you try a new system...at first you can't miss and think you have found the holy grail or something...after a while the novelty of the "different" system wears off and you find yourself missing the same shots you were before......
I think the "different" system caused you to raise your "focus level"
Bottom line to all this is...I think that you just need to find a "method" that allows you the "confidence" that you are aimed right.......from there its just a matter how consistently you can remain focused and execute.
Last edited:
BRKNRUN said:
Well said. Confidence is key. Uncanny ability is no more than Earl knowing everything works, his system is so engraved that it is automatic. If you ever watch him, it sometimes doesn't work. And when that happens I'm sure he is doing a full system check.
BRKNRUN said:
I think there is a lot of truth to what you said.
I no longer think in terms of line and points. Just a steady focus until I feel I'm alligned and prepared to make the shot accurately and with the right shape.
If there's any line I pay attention to, it's the line the object ball will take.
Colin Colenso said:
Haven't you guys ever noticed some fairly new players sometimes that
seem to jump up quite a bit in ability after awhile like they are playing
2-3 balls above where they were a month before? Seems like it lasts
for 4-6 months, and then they come down off the clouds to shoot
'more normal' for them. It seems like they took giant steps for awhile
and then they come back down, and have to work back up with normal
steps like everybody else ...lol I kind of noticed that a little about
Cory Deuel, but they blamed it on his golfing playing.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
BRKNRUN said:
I think this is mostly true.
That being said, I have shown MANY people the method of aiming that I currently use (from now on I am calling Contact and Pivot), and they are mostly uncovinced and completely skeptical. And when the ball goes in the hole without hitting any cushions, they're still perplexed. That is, they don't have much focus or confidence when I show them the nutty system.
Fred
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
JoeyA said:
I think this is what I do also once everything is so honed in, but still, shots will come up especially on tight tables that I have to put my self into system mode. Here's what I believe is going to be my standard post on the subject from here on out. I use many of Hal Houles systems, or pieces of them specific to the shot at hand, simply because I think some are easier to visualize for some shot, and others for others.
I posted on it at the CCBoard. I've been calling it Contact and Pivot.
The first one was this:
Contact and Pivot
and the fine tuning was this:
Refinement on the Cueball
and
Further Clarification
After reading the above posts, the following is the supplemental:
To test/proove this, I line up with the stick pointing to the contact point of the object ball. To test this, place the object ball on the table such that the number is the theoretical contact point. That way, you have something definite to aim at.
Set up a 45 degree cut or so. Your aim should be pointing through the halfway point of the cueball (1/4 ball) directly at the center of the number (contact point). Pivot about your bridge to center cueball. That's the new line. Trust it. Stare at the cueball. Deliver the stroke straight ahead.
Set up a 10 degree or so cut. Your aim should be pointing through a point just a little off center of the cueball (about 1/8th offset) and at the contact point. Pivot to center. You can't miss that shot.
One place I find it super helpful is when the CB and OB are close, but the pocket is far away. The eyes play tricks on you, so it's helpful to have a system that you can just deal with points on the cueball and object ball rather than get mixed up on optics.
If you want to use english, and you have a standard squirt shaft, simply pivot about your bridge to whatever desired english. If you know your pivot point, pivot about that pivot point.
Fred
Last edited:
JR,
Seems you are just alligning to the top point of the ghost ball....right?
Seems you are just alligning to the top point of the ghost ball....right?
Colin Colenso said:
Yes the line connecting the horizon of the ghost ball to the horizon of the object ball, extented points to the pocket. At the time it seemed to help me determine where the ghost ball was, while looking at it from the shot point of view.
Fred Agnir said:
Fred,
So, in essence you are aiming the approximate part of the CB that must contact the OB at the contact point and then pivoting to center? IE, as the cut gets thinner you use a point on the CB farther from the center?
Interestingly enough, this implies that any cut shot can be hit with inside english just by stroking along your original aim line. Does that generally work out to be true (like your inside english 3-rail post on CCB)?
It almost seems that if you simply started with center ball (and I admit that I don't understand why you pivot) and used the same alignment points this method would be nearly identical to the one that Joe T. advocates.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
Hmmm... I don't know. Does it coincide? I'm actually aiming at the OB contact point with my stick. I don't know if they coincide, but they just might.Mungtor said:
Yes, it absolutely works out. It's supposed to.
Because it is difficult to visualize the contact points when aiming at the center of the ball. My way, you actually aim directly at the contact point, a very definite point of aim on the object ball, rather than trying to imagine the side of the cueball that you can't see and how it matches up with. All aim systems should end up being the same when you get ready to fire, or else they wouldn't work.
Fred
Fred Agnir said:
Well Fred, after you explained it to me I tried it and I'm convinced it works. When you first posted it here I didn't understand what you were talking about, but now I understand the concept. Like everything it takes practice but it is lights out if you figure the angle and offset correctly.
I do have one (more) question, when you pivot do you adjust your bridge hand and stance at all or just move the stick? Also, did you learn this from somebody or come up with it on your own?
Thanks,
Al
CaptainJR said:
It could be my eyes, or it could be the drawing is two demensional, or it could be that the "ghost ball" looks a little scrunched, but it seems to me like where you have the "ghost ball" would be a little thin if a hit to pocket the ball....
I see that as a slightly thicker hit.... center CB to edge of OB shot...(HH) system...
I think the common denominator is HH system(s) / Joe Tucker number system / Ghost ball system / Ghost Ball Horizon Line sytem....They will all ultimatley end up with the contact from CB to OB in the exact same spots on each ball.
The systems are just "Viewed Different"
Example...The (HH) system of center CB to edge of OB...That is your aim point visually, but the "actual contact" between the two balls ends up being equal to Joe Tuckers number system.
The difference is...which one are you more comfortable with when you line up...
I personally see the (HH) system much easier....but I know that there is a conversion process happening to where the balls are actually contacting each other based on the Joe Tucker Numbers system......thus for me I can be totally confident that may aim is on....
If I miss....it is because my execution was lacking somewhere...not my aim...