What do you aim at?

[Fred Agnir]

Snooker players who try 9-ball may struggle at times, because they are not used to the larger balls and positioning strategies. They're out of their element. But a most good snooker players can become very good 9-ball players quite quickly with a bit of practice..

I am a simple player. I've won my share, I've lost my share. I'm a top local player, and that's about it.

I played two times, this snooker. Once on a 10' American table, and once on a 12' European table. I daresay both times, the pockets were taking balls less than what I've seen on TV. I recorded a 50 in both sessions. And I'm nobody.

A cueist is a cueist. The difference between the games in a nutshell is that snooker demands accurate pocketing skills. Pool demands accurate position skills. In pool, you get different tables such that accurate pocketing dominates accurate position.

If a cueist were to play one of the disciplines, he would quickly shift his focus.

Fred

 

[Sargo]

A bit out of topic, but I'd compare snooker to outside shooting in basketball which requires a lot of "potting accuracy", but boring. Pool is like the inside game, where there are more variables to consider such as the defenders, the dribble, side-step, body contortions, etc. "Potting" itself is easier once these variables are taken cared of. Pool is more exciting and fun.

 

[pete lafond]

...

It can also be called the ARROW AIMING SYSTEM because you in essence see an arrow that leads from the CB to the OB, OR the OB to the pocket....

Maybe it is called the arrow system or line system, all I am saying is that I found and have shown others who have improved "to see the smallest point from the back of the object ball to the pocket", the whole path. Forget the degree of angle as it is meaningless. More importantly it is impossible for the human eye to pick up absolute degrees without an instrument, nor is it intuitive. Likewise it is also impossible for the human eye to pick up absolute quarters of a ball. We can only estimate these things. Estimation leads to missed shots. On the other hand the human eye can pick up a specific spot that leads to a path. Doing this enough times it then becomes easier to find.

...
There isn't one goddamn thing that's mystical, intuitive, or touchy-feely about what YOU'RE DOING because they are ALL IDENTIFIED AND NAMED AIMING SYSTEM.....

Whether someone named it or not does not matter, what does matter is that the "feel" is the ability to quickly pick up the OB's absolute path and to be experienced enough to adapt to the conditions and the effects of the cue ball as to how it is played on each shot. There is no system for this. This is knowledge and experienced. Anyone can come up with any method to do anything, the fact remains that it can only cover the very beginning basics.

Anyone can be taught to through a curve ball in baseball, but to effect the curve at certain points is a result of the minds ability to develop feel and also the feel to make changes based upon air temperature and humidity.

Next, what also is wrong with the ghost ball, aiming at a point on an object ball, quartering balls... are only adding more parts to a shot. This is very limiting and does not represent the complete shot in the shooters mind which is visually and mentally limiting.

 

[pete lafond]

A cueist is a cueist. The difference between the games in a nutshell is that snooker demands accurate pocketing skills. Pool demands accurate position skills. In pool, you get different tables such that accurate pocketing dominates accurate position.

In general you are right.

I believe we will see changes in pocket sizes in the future. Existing pocket sizes allow too much slop. Furthermore, I do not think that you can discount pool accuracy as sometimes you find yourself with only a portion of the pocket to shoot to. Also, given certain position demands, you again may again have a limited pocket size. Yes not as often in snooker, though in the future pockets will hopefully get tight enough, or we will forever see the weaker players winning some of these tournaments.

 

[drivermaker]

Maybe it is called the arrow system or line system, all I am saying is that I found and have shown others who have improved "to see the smallest point from the back of the object ball to the pocket", the whole path.

Whether someone named it or not does not matter, what does matter is that the "feel" is the ability to quickly pick up the OB's absolute path and to be experienced enough to adapt to the conditions and the effects of the cue ball as to how it is played on each shot.

Again...you haven't come up with anything new. I described EXACTLY what you're doing in my post. "Seeing the smallest point from the back of the OB to the pocket" or "the whole path" is a KNOWN SYSTEM. You didn't invent it.

Regardless of what you use, it all eventually turns into "AUTOMATIC PILOT". Once the mind gets trained in something, it doesn't require a lot of forethought. However, one way of doing something can ALWAYS be more effective than another for best results. HH's system is the same way...it's so simple, that it almost requires NO thought and becomes downright boring. (That is if making balls ever becomes boring)

 

[pete lafond]

Again...you haven't come up with anything new. I described EXACTLY what you're doing in my post. "Seeing the smallest point from the back of the OB to the pocket" or "the whole path" is a KNOWN SYSTEM. You didn't invent it.

Regardless of what you use, it all eventually turns into "AUTOMATIC PILOT". Once the mind gets trained in something, it doesn't require a lot of forethought. However, one way of doing something can ALWAYS be more effective than another for best results. HH's system is the same way...it's so simple, that it almost requires NO thought and becomes downright boring. (That is if making balls ever becomes boring)

What annoys me is that there exists the many systems created at the players expense. I would guess, and I have spoken to several pros, that most expert players see the entire path of the object ball to the pocket when they shoot. I do not care if they look at the cue ball first, last, in-between, or otherwise. I have never spoken to a player that does not see the entire path of the OB to the pocket when they aim.

Many of these systems came about because of some players inability to conceptualize the entire shot. Or just to come out with a system for systems sake. Instead, they are taught like beginners in pieces with the assumption that they are capable of learning no more. My point is not taking the time to learn correctly in the beginning will cause more frustrations in the future. The reason is that the system they learned becomes engraved in their heads and it later becomes more difficult for them to change.

We all have talked about being in the zone. This is a visualization period where the mind is in auto-pilot. The mind can not work correctly in this mode if the mind can not visualize the entire shot.

So my gripe is "Systems" not what is and what is not a system.

 

[drivermaker]

What annoys me is that there exists the many systems created at the players expense.

So my gripe is "Systems" not what is and what is not a system.

I don't think that anything exists at the players expense. I think ALL of it is for a players BENEFIT. CJ Wiley has an aiming system that he teaches...do you think he's trying to f*#k people up and hold their progress back...or to benefit them and make it easier? He uses it himself and can definitely make a lot of balls and shoot great pool. Now he chooses to make more money by being a businessman and run his room properly.

I think your gripe is like many others, and that is the word "SYSTEMS" itself. You don't want to be pigeonholed and think that what you're doing is a part of something that's common. Too bad...everything that we do on the table can be categorized, identified, and pigeonholed. YOU ARE USING A SYSTEM.
SEEING THE BALL TO THE POCKET IS A METHOD OR SYSTEM. Why do you have so much problem with it? What the hell do you want to call it then?

And if you're not using a good method to align your body, eyes, head, cue, and two balls to each other consistently, you'll end up being "cornholed" as a result of how much money you lose and the number of shots you miss. For me...I'll take "pigeonholing" any day.

 

[Celtic]

God forbid anyone reads this thread from beginning to end trying to gain insight on aiming methods. It will screw up their game for a year.

 

[pete lafond]

Too bad...everything that we do on the table can be categorized, identified, and pigeonholed. YOU ARE USING A SYSTEM.
SEEING THE BALL TO THE POCKET IS A METHOD OR SYSTEM. Why do you have so much problem with it? What the hell do you want to call it then?

I do not have a problem with this at all. And I am fully aware that systems exist. My only problem is that there exists "Systems" that are too short sighted.

I have helped a few who were struggling 'C' out of these systems and into a more complete method of aiming (I did not identify a system by name to them because there wouldn't be any reason to. They wanted to know how to aim, not learn the names of aiming systems). I told them if they wanted my help then forget the ghost ball and forget looking for a spot on the object ball, "see the whole shot". In each case, each player had a much better understanding of how to aim afterwards and effectively. And, in each case they improved immensely after being stagnant for so long. They also told me afterwards that they now see the complete shot and have a much better idea about cue ball positioning because there are just fewer parts to think about. Also, I see the many players still practicing these simple systems and they are making shots better, but it ends there. They seem to be the less creative players and generally bail out with safeties too early when they had outs. Their safeties would end up being disastrous against strong players and loose the game.


On the other hand. If a player has difficulty understanding principles and is most likely not going to advance too far than just making shots, then use the ghost ball, pick a spot or quarter the ball. As I see it every thing we do in sports is visual and we all develop a feel for it.

Just my thoughts here.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I don't think that anything exists at the players expense. I think ALL of it is for a players BENEFIT. CJ Wiley has an aiming system that he teaches...do you think he's trying to f*#k people up and hold their progress back...or to benefit them and make it easier? He uses it himself and can definitely make a lot of balls and shoot great pool. Now he chooses to make more money by being a businessman and run his room properly.

I think your gripe is like many others, and that is the word "SYSTEMS" itself. You don't want to be pigeonholed and think that what you're doing is a part of something that's common. Too bad...everything that we do on the table can be categorized, identified, and pigeonholed. YOU ARE USING A SYSTEM.
SEEING THE BALL TO THE POCKET IS A METHOD OR SYSTEM. Why do you have so much problem with it? What the hell do you want to call it then?

And if you're not using a good method to align your body, eyes, head, cue, and two balls to each other consistently, you'll end up being "cornholed" as a result of how much money you lose and the number of shots you miss. For me...I'll take "pigeonholing" any day.

I'd say that is true DM. Even if we think we have found a new way of aligning, chances are many people before have had the same thought before.

I'm pretty sure every player who has played thousands of hours has gone through many different aiming ideas. I guess it has driven most of us crazy at times.

I've seen quite a few natural talents, blessed by ignorance and confidence fall back levels when they began to take the game more seriously and use some system they learned about.

I'm pretty sure, that most of the outstanding players, never paid much attentions to any systems. They learn a lot from copying shots they see. They have a different way at looking at different types of shots. They couldn't dream of putting it all together into a consistant system.

 

[Celtic]

I'm pretty sure, that most of the outstanding players, never paid much attentions to any systems. They learn a lot from copying shots they see. They have a different way at looking at different types of shots. They couldn't dream of putting it all together into a consistant system.

That hit the nail clean on the head. I am sure most pro players spend more time thinking about how they are chalking their cue then how they are aiming their shot. They simple run the rack out as if on auto pilot with engrained knowledge and muscle memory of the subconsious leading the way.

 

[Colin Colenso]

OK, for Colin and Pete LaFond...here's my rendition of intuitive or feel aiming.

We'll take a cut into the side pocket where the OB is in the center of the table about 18 inches from the pocket. The CB is slightly down table, all in all not a difficult cut. (It doesn't matter what the angle is, it's still feel and intuitive, right?)

It seems like both Pete and Colin see a path from the OB to the pocket. They have in fact BOTH SAID THIS.

HEY FELLAS...WAKE THE FUCK UP...ALL DEBATE ABOUT AIMING SYSTEMS CAN CEASE RIGHT HERE AND NOW BECAUSE THAT IMAGERY IN OF ITSELF IS AN AIMING SYSTEM, IT'S GIVEN DIFFERENT NAMES, BUT IT'S AN AIMING SYSTEM. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE DOING, WHAT THEY'RE CALLED, OR ENOUGH ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF AIMING!

It can be called the RAILROAD AIMING SYSTEM, because you picture a set of railroad tracks leading to the target pocket. The OB is located directly on or between the set of tracks.

It can also be called the TUNNEL AIMNG SYSTEM, which is similar to the Railroad Aiming System, but instead of railroad tracks, you mentally picture the OB in a tunnel running directly to the target pocket. Some also call it the TROUGH AIMING SYSTEM, because there's an invisible TROUGH to the pocket that the OB moves in.

It can be called the CHAIN BALL AIMING SYSTEM, which is EXACTLY what Colin laid out in his diagram with multiple cue balls in stop action sequence until it struck the OB in another post. You picture in your "minds eye" a chain of balls behind the OB touching or overlapping the next ball in a straight line all the way to the pocket, OR a chain of CB's leading to the OB.

It can also be called the ARROW AIMING SYSTEM because you in essence see an arrow that leads from the CB to the OB, OR the OB to the pocket.

It can also be called the LINE AIMING SYSTEM where you see either a single line or double line running from the OB to the pocket or the CB to OB.

There isn't one goddamn thing that's mystical, intuitive, or touchy-feely about what YOU'RE DOING because they are ALL IDENTIFIED AND NAMED AIMING SYSTEM.
You BOTH are using one of the above, and we can really stop right here.

But I won't.

Colin...you gave me a description of your mystical, intuitive way of getting to the balls and it just has to FEEL right the way you're aiming. And then you pull the trigger.

First of all, to come upon a shot with a cut is the recognition of an ANGLE. This IS NOT mystical. It's MEMORY. YOU EITHER SEE A DEAD STRAIGHT IN SHOT OR AN ANGLE AND HAVE SOME SORT OF IDENTIFICATION PROCESS.

Now you might not know the exact # of degrees in that angle, but subconsciously you view it FROM MEMORY of having struck it many times before and have it classified as "straight in", "almost straight in", "minor", "medium or half ball", " "fairly severe", and "very severe, which would be edge to edge". Am I on track so far?? BTW, this is called THE GEOMETRIC OR ANGLE AIMING SYSTEM. Whether you realilze it or not, you ARE USING AN IDENTIFIED AND NAMED METHOD OF AIMING, ONCE AGAIN. You are seeing a shot that's either straight in or has some degree of angle that you immediately recognize and classify in a corner of your brain.

That having been said, you now get down into the CB with your stance KNOWING that you'll be striking the OB somewhere from the center to somewhere on the edge which is 1 1/8", depending on the severity of the cut. The CB will also strike the OB from the center to the edge which is also 1 1/8" on the face. In doing this, you are now subconsciously using any one of MULTIPLE AIMING SYSTEMS. It could be CONTACT POINT, GHOST BALL, SECTIONAL AIMING, EQUAL AND OPPOSITE CONTACT, LINE AIMING, OVERLAP METHOD, (where you see the CB overlapping the OB) or others that I mentioned earlier.

You may also say at this point...NO DRIVERMAKER... I don't use any of those.

Then, I would have to say at this point that you use the "FIDGET" or "GUESSING GAME METHOD", whereby you get down on the CB and align your cue and keep "FIDGETING" a little left, ...back a little right...back to center...back a little left...until it just looks and feels right. HOWEVER, that is still the CUE STICK AIMING METHOD which is going on a line or point to somewhere on the CB to OB. Again...it's another identifiable and named aiming system.

And if you say that you use NONE of the above...you're totally full of shit and both morons. Because if you say EFREN can't pot balls using an aiming system, I'd hate to see what YOUR ball potting % would be using nothing or something that can't be explained. However, it CAN be explained and I just did it.

And Colin...FUCK SNOOKER. We're POOL PLAYERS, not Snooker. Go to a snooker forum and talk shit there. It's like comparing soft ball to baseball. They sure seem like the same game, but they're NOT...

Hey DM,
I don't think I've ever said anything that suggests what I do couldn't be described by an aiming system.

My main point is, whatever aiming system you use, to line it up requires a kind of intuitive feel.

That feel is develped by thousands of repetitions maing an imprint on the memory. It must be processed in the mind right. Doesn't mean that knowing this makes you a great player. The mind is like a muscle, it requires many exercises to develop that intuition as I named it.

I've no idea about all the systems you mentioned. Though I'm sure I've used aspects of several of them and probably still do in my process of alignment.

So I'm not quite sure what the argument is about.

I'd be very willing to set up a website that explains all these aiming sytems if I could get the descriptions. That might help us to hone in on some points of disagreement

 

[drivermaker]

I'm pretty sure, that most of the outstanding players, never paid much attentions to any systems.

Well Efren has and he's explained it in detail. But then again...we know he can't shoot worth a damn.

Mosconi did...he wrote about it and explained it in detail. But then again...we know he couldn't shoot worth a damn. Hell, they were all only half table shots.

Actually the list goes on and on of players that HAVE used a method or system to consistently line up and aim to make shots. There are many pros that currently use a variety of methods. It's no big deal...they don't think about it because it's so ingrained. It just beats the FIDGETING METHOD.
Once you bend over to the CB to set up, have you ever counted the number of times your eyes go from the CB to the OB to the pocket, back to the CB to the tip of your cue back to the OB, etc. What would you call that and what the hell are you looking at?

 

[drivermaker]

Hey DM,
I don't think I've ever said anything that suggests what I do couldn't be described by an aiming system.

I'd be very willing to set up a website that explains all these aiming sytems if I could get the descriptions. That might help us to hone in on some points of disagreement

Bullshit...you've said all along that you don't subscribe to ANY aiming system...it's all intuitive, natural, or metaphysical. Now you're backpedaling.
You've also said that you know NOTHING of those systems. That's not my fault. That's why we're have major disagreements. Sometimes ignorance can be bliss...in this case ignorance is just ignorance and doesn't help.

All of that is explained in certain books...posting it on the internet would be breaking copyright laws and robbing a fellow pool player out of his life work and ability to earn money. If you want to BUY the book, I'll tell you how to order...but I don't think it's right to post anything for free.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think this is a fine answer. One that has no physics or geometry. And you expect that this "feel" helps you make balls. No logic, or diagrams. No way to convey it to another person.

Yet you ask that HH's system be put on a website, that it has logical numbers and geometry to it. I've given finite tangible points, not feelings.

And Colin, many of us have been playing for decades. If you think for one second the fine post you made is something new to us, you are truly lost in your own world. There are some shots in a game of 9-ball or 8-ball (not SNOOKER) that you MUST shoot. You are forced to shoot. Shots that are not in the snooker play book. And some of these shots have no good feelings to anyone. At that moment, it's a good thing many people have been exposed to a system to bail them out.

Fred

Fred,
I appreciate the friendly manner of your response. I don't intend to raise a fight over the minutia of things we have a common interest in, though different perspectives.

I don't think what I wrote is a unique insight regarding feel. The reason I wrote it is to hopefully touch some common ground.

Of course feel cannot be described in diagrams, but from my understanding of your systems are that they are analytical, based on points. I don't doubt there's more to it, and I'm very curious to get a complete explanation of it, be it in words or diagrams.

I've stated several times that it seems a useful system in 80% of situations and I'm sure it has helped a lot of players, but that doesn't warrant it being beyond criticism or deeper analysis.

 

[drivermaker]

I do not have a problem with this at all. And I am fully aware that systems exist. My only problem is that there exists "Systems" that are too short sighted.

Seems to me if youl don't know all of the different systems that are actually out there and how perform them, that's a totally incorrect statement. Fact is...they very well may, and DO, go FAR BEYOND anything that you've been discussing so far to help make balls.

Let's assume you're playing 9-ball...race to 7. You're down 6-4.

The 9ball is one diamond from the corner pocket and 6" from the rail. The 6 is at the middle diamond 5" from the rail and the 7 & 8 are tied up kissing each other on the other end of the table with no way of breaking them up. The CB is at the next diamond from the center pocket about 3-4" from the rail. You rule out a safety or a kick and have to take the combination shot right now.
Tell me your exact step by step process of lining that shot up and visualizing how to make it into the corner pocket, or explaining it to someone else.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Bullshit...you've said all along that you don't subscribe to ANY aiming system...it's all intuitive, natural, or metaphysical. Now you're backpedaling.
You've also said that you know NOTHING of those systems. That's not my fault. That's why we're have major disagreements. Sometimes ignorance can be bliss...in this case ignorance is just ignorance and doesn't help.

All of that is explained in certain books...posting it on the internet would be breaking copyright laws and robbing a fellow pool player out of his life work and ability to earn money. If you want to BUY the book, I'll tell you how to order...but I don't think it's right to post anything for free.

DM,
I think the first part regarding aiming is semantics. I can say I don't use an aiming system, but yes, anything we do can be categorized and called a system. That I'm not aware of some author categorizing my method to align in a book I've never seen doesn't seem relevant to me. Call it a system if you will. Am I back peddling? The major issue here is the physics of the system that has been put forth, and none of you have tried to explain the incongruities I diagrammed.

If you don't think copying and pasting is fair (personally I think it is free PR and they should thank you for it). Why don't you just give me the links or names of the books? Not your perogative, but I would appreciate it.

 

[drivermaker]

DM,
I think the first part regarding aiming is semantics. I can say I don't use an aiming system, but yes, anything we do can be categorized and called a .system. That I'm not aware of some author categorizing my method to align in a book I've never seen doesn't seem relevant to me. Call it a system of you will. Am I back peddling? The major issue here is the physics of the system that has been put forth, ad none of you have tried to explain the incongruities I diagrammed.

If you don't think copying and pasting is fair (personally I think it is free PR and they should thank you for it). Why don't you just give me the links or names of the books? Not your perogative, but I would appreciate it.

Aiming on the cutting edge...by Todd Leveck

I guess if you never stop to read a book on any subject...nothing will be relevant to you. Therefore, it doesn't exist. Physics on paper in 2D doesn't mean shit.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I am a simple player. I've won my share, I've lost my share. I'm a top local player, and that's about it.

I played two times, this snooker. Once on a 10' American table, and once on a 12' European table. I daresay both times, the pockets were taking balls less than what I've seen on TV. I recorded a 50 in both sessions. And I'm nobody.

A cueist is a cueist. The difference between the games in a nutshell is that snooker demands accurate pocketing skills. Pool demands accurate position skills. In pool, you get different tables such that accurate pocketing dominates accurate position.

If a cueist were to play one of the disciplines, he would quickly shift his focus.

Fred

That makes sense, they would change their focus and learn to become more accurate players.

btw. Talking to pro-snooker players, the average club table has bigger pockets that the tightened pockets they use in pro events.

Note that no American pool player has made the conversion to professional snooker, despite the lucrative gains. Australia and Canada are snooker nations and yet they have only managed a couple of highly competitive players in the last 30 years.

The fact you made fifties in your only games indicates you are a good player. Many people play for 40 years and never achieve that. However, you probably went to the table 50 times to achieve this. The top pros make a 50 about 50% of the time they are left open.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that it would be worthwhile to consider their aiming systems as an alternative.

 

[Colin Colenso]

A bit out of topic, but I'd compare snooker to outside shooting in basketball which requires a lot of "potting accuracy", but boring. Pool is like the inside game, where there are more variables to consider such as the defenders, the dribble, side-step, body contortions, etc. "Potting" itself is easier once these variables are taken cared of. Pool is more exciting and fun.

I agree, I prefer pool, especially 8-ball. To play at the highest levels it requires a great range of skills, mental and physical.