What is a good aiming system?

[mikepage]

Patrick...You make yourself sound like an idiot, [...]

Scott-

Patrick is among the most knowledgeable people we have about aiming, and when you combine that with his openness to learn, his penchant for honest reflection and discussion, and the fact he's not selling anything, his contributions are quite valuable here.

My opinion is he deserves your public respect rather than your public scorn.

 

[RRfireblade]

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

Best point made so far and one missed by most people.

The problem is as you get to be a better player , you will have easier shots and need no 'system'. One would more typically need a system for longer harder shots where ironically , you need more precision with less adjustment than required by most 'systems' at that distance.

Interesting huh ?



Precision ball speed , now that would be something to have a error free system for , I'd buy that one all day long . . .

 

[stan shuffett]

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

I learned the cornerstones of the center-to-edge system from Hal Houle.

Hal encouraged me to advance the system. I advanced the system my way using the concepts that I learned from Hal.

PRO ONE is a 1 phase, 4 variable center-to-edge-sytem. Aiming is basically a one angle affair.

The system can be learned in a few hours. Proficiency may require a few months.

I offer the system separately or embedded with my foundation course.

This is not a magic pill system. You can win or lose with it. I won 3 14.1 matches with Landon yesterday only to get drilled 11 to 1 in 10-ball. I didn't shoot much in the 10-ball match.


Stan Shuffett

 

[Blackjack]

This is not a magic pill system. You can win or lose with it. I won 3 14.1 matches with Landon yesterday only to get drilled 11 to 1 in 10-ball. I didn't shoot much in the 10-ball match.


Stan Shuffett

That's quite an impressive monster you have created, Dr. Frankenstein.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

OK, I guess I do understand you now and you are just plain wrong.

I don't believe you understand me yet - here's why:

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.

Believe it or not, Hu, you're not the first to notice this. My statement takes into account the margin for error given by pockets being bigger than balls - I've measured it all the way from 4-inch pockets to 5.5-inch pockets. I also take into account the "reflection factor" for OBs near the rails being shot into corner pockets and the fact that pocket openings are larger or smaller depending on where the OB is generally. I've mentioned these factors in several posts on this topic.

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.

I think you're confusing "margins for error" - there are two kinds, pocket size and cut angle. You've only mentioned pocket size, but it's really cut angle that makes shots "easy" or "hard". Thinner shots are harder because they present a smaller target with less "margin for error" (the OB contact area seen "on edge") - but this has no affect on how well systems work. Pocket size affects all shots equally, thinner or fuller - so "easier" shots aren't affected less by it. In other words, neither of these factors change the fact that most shots need adjustments with these systems.

Pocketing balls should be the easy part of the equation

Tell that to all the players looking for an aiming system that works.

pj
chgo

 

[Dead Crab]

Not necessarily so. I use a geometrically correct system that is two dimensional, and depth perception is not an issue.

However, I do still need to be able to judge distances within a mm or two at varying distances. Judging fine distances at 3' is obviously easier than at 8', and is easier in the absence of shadows than it is at the confluence of cushion and ball shadows, where darkness occasionally envelops the aim point.

Nonetheless, when I miss, I can seldom blame it on poor aim. Usually a stroke issue, or failure to adequately compensate for various types of spin.

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?

 

[crawfish]

A good aiming system? Come on. I'm sorry, you have to feel it. If you're going three rails dodging the eight ball to get on the four, using inside english, you can tell me there's a system for that? It's called practice, nerve, and feel.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

the ["perfect"] systems you mentioned are all 3 dimensional. The imperfect systems you mentioned are all 2 dimensional.

The double-overlap system is a "geometrically perfect" 2-dimensional system.

But you raise a worthwhile point: 2-dimensional visualization is easier for many and that's one of the value-added features of 2-dimensional "approximation" systems. But 2-dimensional isn't easier for everybody - for many others it's easier to be accurate with 3-dimensional visualization (I'm one of those).

But this is irrelevant to my point - I'm not trying to declare winners and losers among systems. I'm trying to establish frank and open discussion of the realities of each so players can make informed personal decisions about them.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

we are getting somewhere

PJ,

We are starting to get somewhere. Your last post makes it plain that you don't understand what "easy" and "hard" means. Please do some research concerning these terms. Once you grasp what these terms mean then you should understand that "easy" shots go without compensation. I originally used the term "tough" referring to hard shots but swapped to your terminology. Apparently it didn't help our communication.

To reword earlier statements of mine, easy shots are easy because they have a large margin of error. Easy shots go without compensation because the ball will still be pocketed if the original aim was for center pocket and other factors alter the direction of travel slightly.

I am not saying that the object ball will necessarily hit exactly where it was intended to hit, I am saying it will be pocketed and the player's inning will continue.

Hu

A quick edit to add, I was just shown an aiming system that works over 90% of the time in actual play. I didn't count exact success ratios nor did I use it long enough to say I have a valid sample or I would use a higher number than 90%.

Hu

I don't believe you understand me yet - here's why:



Believe it or not, Hu, you're not the first to notice this. My statement takes into account the margin for error given by pockets being bigger than balls - I've measured it all the way from 4-inch pockets to 5.5-inch pockets. I also take into account the "reflection factor" for OBs near the rails being shot into corner pockets and the fact that pocket openings are larger or smaller depending on where the OB is generally. I've mentioned these factors in several posts on this topic.



I think you're confusing "margins for error" - there are two kinds, pocket size and cut angle. You've only mentioned pocket size, but it's really cut angle that makes shots "easy" or "hard". Thinner shots are harder because they present a smaller target with less "margin for error" (the OB contact area seen "on edge") - but this has no affect on how well systems work. Pocket size affects all shots equally, thinner or fuller - so "easier" shots aren't affected less by it. In other words, neither of these factors change the fact that most shots need adjustments with these systems.



Tell that to all the players looking for an aiming system that works.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

everybody whould show respect

Patrick...You make yourself sound like an idiot, [...]

Scott-

Patrick is among the most knowledgeable people we have about aiming, and when you combine that with his openness to learn, his penchant for honest reflection and discussion, and the fact he's not selling anything, his contributions are quite valuable here.

My opinion is he deserves your public respect rather than your public scorn.

Well stated, and very appropriate. I agree 100%.

Respectfully,
Dave

 

[cleary]

If you're going three rails dodging the eight ball to get on the four, using inside english, you can tell me there's a system for that?

actually, there is. Going 3 rails for position on the 4 has nothing to do with aiming... but there is a system that will put you dead where you want to be. Spend a few hours with RonV. He is the master of systems. Aiming, banking, kicking. The man is genius! And he has a system for exactly what you are saying.

 

[crawfish]

actually, there is. Going 3 rails for position on the 4 has nothing to do with aiming... but there is a system that will put you dead where you want to be. Spend a few hours with RonV. He is the master of systems. Aiming, banking, kicking. The man is genius! And he has a system for exactly what you are saying.

Just go ask Johnny or Efren what "system" they use. If you don't get a chuckle, Id be surprised. Some people just see things and the table different. What works for some, might not work well for others. Nothing beats time on the table and natural talent. Think about it. When you have to adjust the cue ball for the "spin" you are about to put on it, it comes down to practice and nerve. THERE IS NO MAGIC TOOL to make you play better other than your brain, and time on the table, and your nerve. If we were all in a vacuum, then maybe.

 

[cleary]

I completely agree crawfish... feel and table time plays a HUGE part in becoming a great player. You cannot become great with simply knowing a system. A mix of good knowledge, talent and hard work is the key to almost anything.

Not everyone uses systems... some people have a gift, but most don't. And some people could use a system and dont even realize what it could do for them. Even with a system, you still have to have the feel for the shot to keep the system in check.

With that said, I would bet even Efren using some sort of system in some part of his game.

I was simply trying to tell you that there IS a system for exactly what you described and when your money is on the line... it could hurt to know it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Your last post makes it plain that you don't understand what "easy" and "hard" means. Please do some research concerning these terms.

Silly combative comments like this won't get us anywhere, Hu.

"easy" shots go without compensation. I originally used the term "tough" referring to hard shots but swapped to your terminology. Apparently it didn't help our communication.

So you define "easy" to mean those shots that go without compensation? OK, that's not the common definition, but I'll go with it. Using that definition, with these systems most shots are "hard". Of course, it would be better for communication to avoid words with special definitions. Here's my statement without reference to words like "easy" or "hard":

Even taking into account the "margin of error" for pockets being larger than balls, most shots cannot be pocketed using "approximating" systems like Fractional Aiming, Center-to-Edge, etc. without adjusting or compensating by "feel" from the strict formula aim prescribed by the system. This is true even if you limit the shots in question to those with less than, say, 45 degrees of cut angle.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

and I don't think they want cookies.


And whats wrong with cookies!!!

 

[cookie man]

Tell that to all the players looking for an aiming system that works.

pj
chgo

No longer looking, found CTE!!!!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Nothing is wrong with cookies... I left that one dangling for you!! If anyone is SERIOUSLY looking for cookies, Cookie Man has the best in the world, no doubt.

Dave

 

[md5key]

I have gone through a lot of different techniques since I got back into playing. When I played before (6 years ago) I never really thought much about my aim - I just got down and shot what I felt was a good angle.

After coming back to the game I started to realize that my "feel" was great some days, and absolute crap other days. I'd go a week shooting good and a week (or two!) shooting bad. I tried correcting this using the little bits of each "aiming system" I could pick up on here. However, over the last two weeks I've come upon what seems to be the best "system" for me..

Step #1 is to stand DIRECTLY in line with the object ball and the pocket I want to use. I then make a note of that position using the Ghost ball technique - I don't concentrate as much on the exact point where I need to contact the object ball at this point, I just get a reference of the line. I also determine the spin/speed I need to use for my next shot.

Step #2 is to walk over to the cue ball and align myself so that my right hand (my shooting hand) is holding the cue in approximately the correct line the cueball would need to travel to pocket the OB. If I don't feel comfortable I go back to step 1.

Step #3 is to get into my shooting stance while leaving the cue stick pointed in the intended cueball path. Once down on the shot I make sure I'm still aligned right. If I don't feel comfortable I go back to step #1. If it feels right then I take a few practice strokes to get the speed/spin right and then fire away.

Step #4 is to pay attention to what went wrong if I missed the shot. I can usually tell if I missed it because of aim or stroke machanics - usually since I've been using this method though it has been stroke inconsistancies.

This has been working for a couple weeks - I think I'm going to have to play consistantly well for a couple months though before I feel like this is "the" method I need to be using.

 

[Jimmy M.]

There's a secret society, some call them the Illuminati, that swears by Center-to-Edge and will curse your children to hell if you use anything but that system. However, being that it's ultra-uber-super-duper-top-secret, no one will actually discuss it with you, but rather they will tell you that you must call their Grand Pumba, Hal Houle, in order to obtain any information.

There's a rumor floating around that the number that you would have to dial doesn't actually get you to Hal Houle, but rather to some crazy brain washing device because everyone who has ever actually made the call comes back talking in secret code like the rest of 'em, and trying to get others to "make the call". It appears to be some sort of Telcomm Trojan.

...
...

imo.

 

[dr_dave]

secret code prophets

There's a secret society, some call them the Illuminati, that swears by Center-to-Edge and will curse your children to hell if you use anything but that system. However, being that it's ultra-uber-super-duper-top-secret, no one will actually discuss it with you, but rather they will tell you that you must call their Grand Pumba, Hal Houle, in order to obtain any information.

There's a rumor floating around that the number that you would have to dial doesn't actually get you to Hal Houle, but rather to some crazy brain washing device because everyone who has ever actually made the call comes back talking in secret code like the rest of 'em, and trying to get others to "make the call". It appears to be some sort of Telcomm Trojan.

...
...

imo.

I've called both Hal (several years ago) and Stan (recently). The calls certainly didn't make me start talking in secret code.

I don't like debating "aiming systems" because its like debating religion, politics, or abortion ... it's fun to observe, but it often doesn't lead anywhere. All I have to say on the matter, backed up by others, can be found here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html​

Regards,
Dave