What is a good aiming system?

[BWTadpole]

Patrick...You make yourself sound like an idiot, when you just FLAT say everyone else is WRONG and only you are right. There is no right or wrong in thinking about or playing pool. There are some methods, that for some people (in some cases, many people), will bring them more consistent results or success. That is all...

Of the major aiming systems, that are taught by instructors, you have experienced exactly NONE of them in person. How that makes you such an expert, and justified in condemning all of them is beyond me!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Too long, did not read...

Scott, opinion is opinion. We don't need such aggressive positions taken by people on this forum, especially from people who are held in some high regard.

There can be only one Grady... (Sorry man, had to do it )

 

[Catahula]

Joe Tucker's system

IMHO...There is no single system that works 100% of the time.
That being said there are multiple systems that have been put forth and ascribed to by various members of this forum. Everyone of those systems has been successful to some degree by those folks. The one thing that I think that that all share in common is that, ultimately, some sense of "feel" as Patrick put it, comes into play.
For myself, after being a "feel" player for 50 years got confronted with Joe Tucker's Aiming System and now I wish that I had access to it back when I was starting out. For me it works...pure and simple just like the system itself. Just point to point contact.
I know that when I am using it I am going to be very close to spot on perfect. That being said I still won't pull the trigger until I "feel" the shot is correct.
Additionally, Joe (who posts here under "Joe T") is about as considerate and helpful and individual as you would want to meet. The man is about raising everyone level of the game and willingly shares his time and energies with those interested.
I am not a shill for Joe but am a true believer in his particular system.
Check it out at www.joetucker.net.
Play well.
Tommy

 

[Poolplaya9]

Patrick...You make yourself sound like an idiot, when you just FLAT say everyone else is WRONG and only you are right. There is no right or wrong in thinking about or playing pool. There are some methods, that for some people (in some cases, many people), will bring them more consistent results or success. That is all...

Of the major aiming systems, that are taught by instructors, you have experienced exactly NONE of them in person. How that makes you such an expert, and justified in condemning all of them is beyond me!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

There are a lot of people who still genuinely believe that the earth is flat too (google "flat earth society" among others if you don't believe me).

You didn't have to personally experience flying around the world in a straight line and ending back up at your starting point in order for you to be able to say unequivocally that the earth is not flat, did you? It's no different here.

There are no (nada, none, zilch) aiming systems that are accurate without making aiming adjustments based on feel, intuition, or experience--period (and it only takes a little common sense and some very basic math/science to prove it). To think otherwise is what makes someone sound like an idiot (to use your venacular), and is no different than those that still want to insist the earth is flat in the face of indisputable proof.

Where aiming systems might benefit some people is due to a placebo effect, and/or because they get you in the aiming ballpark where it may be easier for some people to finish adjusting their aim from there using the feel/intuition/experience, rather than having to do it from scratch.

If an aiming system helps someone then more power to them, but they deserve to not be misled or lied to about what the system actually is (and isn't), or why it actually helped (if it helped).

 

[cookie man]

PRO ONE and Feel

As a player approaches the table for a turn there are at least three variables to mentally consider: angle and speed and spin. Angle is mostly about making the ball while speed and spin largely determine cueball positioning. In PRO ONE the sightline angle is constant. It?s center-to-edge. There?s no guess work at this point. A player is freed up to put more energy into the variables of speed and spin.

After a player?s initial mental work concerning angle, speed and spin are complete, it?s time to prepare to shoot. Preparation for shooting is largely a sensory function. In PRO ONE alignment the eyes see center-to-edge. No guess work yet. 99% of the aiming is over. During the center-to edge-visual the PRO ONE player is also visualizing and feeling the speed and spin aspects of the shot. Yes, there are systems for speed and spin but feel is a must. The aim aspect is easy. Getting the speed and spin correct is ultimately the greatest challenge. There?s a lot of feel in speed and spin especially during the preparation phase of shooting as one must absorb the precise feeling that is necessary for that speed and spin required for successful shot execution.

Now it?s time to go into a proper stance and physically shoot. In PRO ONE a player uses a simple technique involving 2 variables that brings tip postition to center cueball. The practice strokes are next??Perhaps 3 practice strokes. The aim and tip position is dead on?or maybe a 1% tweak can be made. Yeah, that may involve a little feel. Is it time to shoot yet? I think, no!! The aim is so good at this point that it actually allows a player to have more practice strokes to actually connect with the proper speed and spin feeling that is necessary to pinpoint the cueball.

PRO ONE gets a player aimed-up correctly shot after shot so there?s more time to actually feel the speed and spin during the practice strokes. This is one of the key elements to a pro level game. Aim is easy and not complicated. There?s not much feel or guess work at all with aim. Pros spend their feel time with the all important aspect of controlling the cueball.

Stan Shuffett

Very well said!!!

 

[Dead Crab]

Credit for my aiming system goes to Euclid and Pythagoras. Two very righteous dudes.

 

[JimS]

Too long, did not read...

Scott, opinion is opinion. We don't need such aggressive positions taken by people on this forum, especially from people who are held in some high regard.

There can be only one Grady... (Sorry man, had to do it )

Who are you to tell Scott or anybody else how to respond or post on this forum. "WE"???? Who is we?

I think Scott's post was on target. You, imo, are out of line.

 

[tpdtom]

PRO ONE and Feel

As a player approaches the table for a turn there are at least three variables to mentally consider: angle and speed and spin. Angle is mostly about making the ball while speed and spin largely determine cueball positioning. In PRO ONE the sightline angle is constant. It?s center-to-edge. There?s no guess work at this point. A player is freed up to put more energy into the variables of speed and spin.

After a player?s initial mental work concerning angle, speed and spin are complete, it?s time to prepare to shoot. Preparation for shooting is largely a sensory function. In PRO ONE alignment the eyes see center-to-edge. No guess work yet. 99% of the aiming is over. During the center-to edge-visual the PRO ONE player is also visualizing and feeling the speed and spin aspects of the shot. Yes, there are systems for speed and spin but feel is a must. The aim aspect is easy. Getting the speed and spin correct is ultimately the greatest challenge. There?s a lot of feel in speed and spin especially during the preparation phase of shooting as one must absorb the precise feeling that is necessary for that speed and spin required for successful shot execution.

Now it?s time to go into a proper stance and physically shoot. In PRO ONE a player uses a simple technique involving 2 variables that brings tip postition to center cueball. The practice strokes are next??Perhaps 3 practice strokes. The aim and tip position is dead on?or maybe a 1% tweak can be made. Yeah, that may involve a little feel. Is it time to shoot yet? I think, no!! The aim is so good at this point that it actually allows a player to have more practice strokes to actually connect with the proper speed and spin feeling that is necessary to pinpoint the cueball.

PRO ONE gets a player aimed-up correctly shot after shot so there?s more time to actually feel the speed and spin during the practice strokes. This is one of the key elements to a pro level game. Aim is easy and not complicated. There?s not much feel or guess work at all with aim. Pros spend their feel time with the all important aspect of controlling the cueball.

Stan Shuffett

Stan,

This sounds like what I need ! If this works for me in spite of my often falsely perceived cueing spot due to cross dominance it would be worth the price of admission to me. I have worked on shooting long straight shots for a year now to develop a repeatable stroke. I think I usually stay down and finish. For the little that I play, since my time in the foundation course with you my game has improved 30-40%. Now I want to learn this. How does September 23rd look ? I'm on vacation that week.

Fellas, Stan is a great instructor located in Central Kentucky. His son Landon's success and current status as National Junior Champion attest to Stan's teaching and coaching methods. Since Stan's retirement as a college teacher he is devoting himself full time to this, and a more dedicated instructor you will not find. Find the time to get together with Stan. Notable pros who have worked with him include Stevie Moore, Louis Ulrich, and Yu Ram Cha, not to mention his son Landon, who I understand is using this aiming system on every shot now and recently beat his dad in a race to 100 10 Ball. I bet it's Stan's favorite loss. Rep to you Stan !

By the way, Stan's rates are very reasonable too. Go for it. You can reach Stan through his website http://www.justcueit.com/index.html

My highest recommendation...Tom

 

[BWTadpole]

Who are you to tell Scott or anybody else how to respond or post on this forum. "WE"???? Who is we?

I think Scott's post was on target. You, imo, are out of line.

I think I speak for a good amount of people who don't like over-simplified, to-the-extreme arguments that attack another forum member and demean him. In other words, Scott Lee speaking towards Pat's supposed lack of intelligence for voicing his opinions, THAT is out of line.

Scott can sure as hell speak his mind all he wants, but he in the process loses my respect as an instructor and as a member of the community. I would think that an instructor need be more open minded and tolerant, same with being a participant of the forum. We're different folks with different strokes (more literal than I had intended...), and maybe very few things are relative between the all of us. If he wants to do that to himself, let him go for it. But he doesn't need to bring people down and insult them in the process.

Anyway, with that unpleasantness aside...

With so many people praising the PRO ONE system, I'm going to take some time out tonight and look it over. I'm going in with an open mind, and who knows, maybe I can learn something that works for me.

 

[dr_dave]

Excellent summary!

You'll always aim by feel; no system will change that. Even with the "systems" that show you exactly where to hit the OB ("ghost ball", "double overlap", "paralleling") you need to "feel" when you're lined up exactly right and "feel" how much adjustment to make for OB throw and CB squirt/swerve.

And most systems don't show you exactly where to hit the OB; they give you an approximate aim point (which you have to line up correctly by feel) and from that you have to adjust to the real aim point by feel. "Approximating" systems include all the systems that are not the well-known "exact" systems I named above.

"Approximating" systems include those taught by Hal Houle, Cue-Tech, RonV, Stan Shuffet, Joe Tucker and others, going by such names as "fractional aiming", "3-angles", "S.A.M.", "center-to-edge", "Pro 1", etc., etc. Some users and teachers of these systems will tell you that they are "exact" systems that need no adjustments, but they're wrong. All of them are approximation systems and all of them require you to adjust your aim by feel. The only one that I'm aware of that actually admits this fact openly is Joe Tucker's system.



Confidence is essential to increasing your "feel" for aiming, with or without an aiming system, and one of the main benefits of using a system is that it can help boost your confidence by narrowing down the range of choices you have to make by feel. Even players who don't think they use any system often use one (or more) unconsciously - for instance, when faced with a tough shot they might get a "second opinion" on their aim by imagining how "ghost ball" or "double overlap" aim would look. Many players use different systems for different kinds of shots - for instance, the "double overlap" system is especially useful for long thin cut shots.

Whether or not you use a system(s) and which one(s) you use are personal choices. Hopefully understanding exactly what aiming systems are and are not before you make those decisions will help you make the right ones for you.

pj
chgo

Patrick,

Excellent summary ... except there are many shots where the systems require no adjustment, so your bolded statement concerning this might have been a little strong.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick...You make yourself sound like an idiot, when you just FLAT say everyone else is WRONG and only you are right.

Scott, it sounds like you were so eager to attack that you forgot to read my post first.

I didn't say "everyone else is wrong"; I said those who say any of these systems work perfectly without adjustments are wrong. Are you saying everybody but me says that?

And I didn't say "only I'm right". Are you saying I'm the only one who says that systems don't work without adjustments? There are others in this very thread who say the same thing.

There is no right or wrong in thinking about or playing pool. There are some methods, that for some people (in some cases, many people), will bring them more consistent results or success. That is all...

This, of course, is true. Strangely enough, it's also just about the same thing I said in the post you attacked. Maybe you're in the wrong thread?

Of the major aiming systems, that are taught by instructors, you have experienced exactly NONE of them in person. How that makes you such an expert, and justified in condemning all of them is beyond me!

Did you read any of my post, Scott? I didn't "condemn" any system, unless you think pointing out how they actually work is "condemning" them. And as for having "experienced" none of these systems, I've never been run over by a bus either, but that doesn't mean I can't calculate the outcome. If you think it's impossible to tell from a description of an aiming system whether or not it can work without adjustment, then you know less about them than I do.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Some users and teachers of these systems will tell you that they are "exact" systems that need no adjustments, but they're wrong.

Patrick,

Excellent summary ... except there are many shots where the systems require no adjustment, so your bolded statement concerning this might have been a little strong.

Regards,
Dave

I think you misread my statement, and so did some others apparently, so I'll clarify: the often-made claim that these systems need no adjustments is wrong. That doesn't mean that all shots need adjustment - but in fact most do. For that reason I think saying "many shots require no adjustment" is also likely to be misinterpreted (I think "many" is a little strong).

Thanks for the compliment about my summary.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ....based on what you said....no system is exact....not even ghostball or double the distance.

Ghostball, double the distance, etc. (the "geometrically correct" systems) are capable of showing by formula exactly how the CB and OB must line up to hit any chosen OB contact point - they're "perfect" in that sense. "Approximation" systems can't do that (except for the relatively few "reference" shots that they define), so they're "imperfect" in that sense.

All of them, as you and I both said, also rely on imperfect human execution.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

not really . . . .

I think you misread my statement, and so did some others apparently, so I'll clarify: the often-made claim that these systems need no adjustments is wrong. That doesn't mean that all shots need adjustment - but in fact most do. For that reason I think saying "many shots require no adjustment" is also likely to be misinterpreted (I think "many" is a little strong).

Thanks for the compliment about my summary.

pj
chgo

PJ,

One of the errors of the math guys is calculating the angles for shots anywhere on the table and then saying that the systems won't work most of the time without correction. Playing a real game where the person shooting is actually trying to get shape on the next ball most shots do go without any correction simply because they shouldn't be that tough of shots to begin with.

Hu

 

[Razorback Randy]

Stan,
Where can I get more information on Pro One - aiming system? I appreciate everyones help so far!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Ghostball, double the distance, etc. (the "geometrically correct" systems) are capable of showing by formula exactly how the CB and OB must line up to hit any chosen OB contact point - they're "perfect" in that sense. "Approximation" systems can't do that (except for the relatively few "reference" shots that they define), so they're "imperfect" in that sense.

All of them, as you and I both said, also rely on imperfect human execution.

pj
chgo

The imperfect systems you refer to eliminate most of the perception requiring in pocketing a ball. So, is it better to have a 100% geometric system that takes tons of perception to master or a slightly imperfect system that hardly requires any perception? You can't effectively double the distance without a tape-measure and you can't figure ghost ball without knowing exactly how long 1 1/8" is. Since no one on this forum can, they're all imperfect in some way or another.

Since I'd argue the perfect systems are imperfect due to requiring perfect perception... and the imperfect systems require less perception.... i guess the question is.... which one is least imperfect?

Nobody can say... everyone is different. What I do know is people are banging down Stan Shuffet's and Ron Vitello's door.... and I don't think they want cookies.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ,

One of the errors of the math guys is calculating the angles for shots anywhere on the table and then saying that the systems won't work most of the time without correction. Playing a real game where the person shooting is actually trying to get shape on the next ball most shots do go without any correction simply because they shouldn't be that tough of shots to begin with.

Hu

Hu, I think you're misunderstanding what I mean when I say "most shots don't go without adjustment". "Most shots don't go" doesn't mean the harder shots don't go and the easier ones do. It means most of all shots, hard and easy, don't go without some adjustment.

I don't see this as a "failure" of systems - I think it's just the way they work, something to recognize and take into account. For many players it's much better to have a system that needs some adjustment for most shots than to have to shoot every shot completely "from scratch" without any system.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'd argue the perfect systems are imperfect due to requiring perfect perception... and the imperfect systems require less perception

I'm tempted to argue this is nonsense, but I'm not even really sure what you're saying. What do you mean by "perfect perception"?

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'm tempted to argue this is nonsense, but I'm not even really sure what you're saying. What do you mean by "perfect perception"?

pj
chgo

Depth perception....the systems you mentioned are all 3 dimensional. The imperfect systems you mentioned are all 2 dimensional.

Do you see how depth perception is a big factor in your geometrically perfect systems?

 

[ShootingArts]

Ok

PJ,

OK, I guess I do understand you now and you are just plain wrong. The actual dimensions of the pocket are usually at least twice as wide as the object ball and you can cheat the pocket a bit more than that. Easy shots don't need any adjustment added since the sizes of the object ball and pocket allow a substantial margin of error. Using ghost ball, matching contact points, fractional aiming, pretty much take your pick of systems, easy shots go. Easy shots are simply that. They are easy because there is a large tolerance for error.

Playing shape means we spend most of our time shooting easier shots. Of course with an easy shot it is much easier to move the cue ball around however we need to and the cycle continues. The better a player is, the better any aiming system works because they make less demands of it. Pocketing balls should be the easy part of the equation, the harder part is getting the cue ball to exactly where you want it for the next shot every time.

Hu

Hu, I think you're misunderstanding what I mean when I say "most shots don't go without adjustment". "Most shots don't go" doesn't mean the harder shots don't go and the easier ones do. It means most of all shots, hard and easy, don't go without some adjustment.

I don't see this as a "failure" of systems - I think it's just the way they work, something to recognize and take into account. For many players it's much better to have a system that needs some adjustment for most shots than to have to shoot every shot completely "from scratch" without any system.

pj
chgo

 

[JimS]

Stan,
Where can I get more information on Pro One - aiming system? I appreciate everyones help so far!

Poster Stan Shuffett invented "Pro One". Pm Stan to set up lessons.