What is a good aiming system?
- Thread starter Razorback Randy
- Start date
C2E description
I don't have anything posted on my website yet because I still haven't seen a convincing and complete description of the system and how it works (including how adjustments are made). When I do, I will add something. I don't think I know (or believe) enough about the system to do it justice; otherwise, I would write something up.
Regards,
Dave
I did talk to Stan about C2E.Jimmy M. said:mmm hmm. I didn't see anything on C2E there. Should I make the call now?
I don't have anything posted on my website yet because I still haven't seen a convincing and complete description of the system and how it works (including how adjustments are made). When I do, I will add something. I don't think I know (or believe) enough about the system to do it justice; otherwise, I would write something up.
Regards,
Dave
Patrick,
Nothing silly or combative about my comments. Your post I was replying to attempted to define difficult cut shots due to the angle to the pocket as easy. When you wished to redefine "easy" was where the difficulty in communication arose. If you refuse to accept typical definitions of "easy" and "difficult" then I have no choice but to ask you to research these terms. I had already spelled out what I meant. Your deliberate obtrusiveness interferes with your ability to process information. Others had no difficulty understanding my terms.
Of course calling my comments "silly" and "combative" is indeed silly and combative.
Most shots in a real game of pool go using almost any accepted system simply because if you shot the last shot before it and played shape properly the shot is usually "easy" by anyone's definition of easy except possibly yours.
Here are the definitions of "easy" and "hard" that I and most of the world use when the words are used to define degree of difficulty. I hope this is of aid in ending any confusion.
Hu
(included text)
eas?y Audio Help /ˈizi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ee-zee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, eas?i?er, eas?i?est, adverb, noun
?adjective 1. not hard or difficult; requiring no great labor or effort: a book that is easy to read; an easy victory.
hard Audio Help /hɑrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahrd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun
?adjective 1. not soft; solid and firm to the touch; unyielding to pressure and impenetrable or almost impenetrable.
2. firmly formed; tight: a hard knot.
3. difficult to do or accomplish; fatiguing; troublesome: a hard task.
4. difficult or troublesome with respect to an action, situation, person, etc.: hard to please; a hard time.
5. difficult to deal with, manage, control, overcome, or understand: a hard problem.
6. involving a great deal of effort, energy, or persistence: hard labor; hard study.
(pay particular attention to definitions 3 through 6, 3 and 5 are most pertinent. hu)
Nothing silly or combative about my comments. Your post I was replying to attempted to define difficult cut shots due to the angle to the pocket as easy. When you wished to redefine "easy" was where the difficulty in communication arose. If you refuse to accept typical definitions of "easy" and "difficult" then I have no choice but to ask you to research these terms. I had already spelled out what I meant. Your deliberate obtrusiveness interferes with your ability to process information. Others had no difficulty understanding my terms.
Of course calling my comments "silly" and "combative" is indeed silly and combative.
Most shots in a real game of pool go using almost any accepted system simply because if you shot the last shot before it and played shape properly the shot is usually "easy" by anyone's definition of easy except possibly yours.
Here are the definitions of "easy" and "hard" that I and most of the world use when the words are used to define degree of difficulty. I hope this is of aid in ending any confusion.
Hu
(included text)
eas?y Audio Help /ˈizi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ee-zee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, eas?i?er, eas?i?est, adverb, noun
?adjective 1. not hard or difficult; requiring no great labor or effort: a book that is easy to read; an easy victory.
hard Audio Help /hɑrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahrd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun
?adjective 1. not soft; solid and firm to the touch; unyielding to pressure and impenetrable or almost impenetrable.
2. firmly formed; tight: a hard knot.
3. difficult to do or accomplish; fatiguing; troublesome: a hard task.
4. difficult or troublesome with respect to an action, situation, person, etc.: hard to please; a hard time.
5. difficult to deal with, manage, control, overcome, or understand: a hard problem.
6. involving a great deal of effort, energy, or persistence: hard labor; hard study.
(pay particular attention to definitions 3 through 6, 3 and 5 are most pertinent. hu)
Patrick Johnson said:
Sorry, Hu, but whether or not a shot is "easy" has nothing to do with whether or not it can be made using an approximation system without adjustment. The two things are just apples and oranges - the fact that you think they're related means you fundamentally misunderstand how aiming systems work.
But if you want to pursue this further you'll have to take it up with somebody else, because semantic arguments complete with dictionary definitions isn't what I come here for.
pj
chgo
Who has used pro one? What did you think about it? Has anyone taken Stans 16 hour - 2 day course? This seems like a good way for me to get a no nonsense approach to learning.
You need a better gathering system. I always say that systems can help people learn to aim better and faster, and I always say that everybody, including me, uses them. My complaint is that systems are described wrongly, not that they don't work.
Again, the "wars" aren't about whether or not systems work; they're about how they work and describing that accurately.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
There are two different things that are discussed in this thread. One is aiming systems that assume some particular aiming spot. The second is an aiming method or an approach to aiming any shot. I think that Stan and JoeT have methods for how to approach a shot, while Hal Houle and some others have systems or particular spots to use.
There are an infinite number of shots so no system can yield exact results. Various methods work for learning to shoot well. To some extent, Stan's method is a place to start the aiming process.
In many situations there is no aim point and the margin of error is quite small given the size of the balls, their contact points and the distances involved. The contact point on an OB cannot be seen in most situations. It must be mentally visualized or created by the perceptual processes. In this sense one can train the eye to make fine gradations. Aiming systems are ways to begin to estimate these points. In the end, the perceptual process must be trained to learn how to aim the front of the CB to contact a non-existent point on the OB. I think that this is what people mean by "feel."
Methods teach us an approach to the aiming process. The remainder is about training the perceptual functions to make fine distinctions. Techniques such the quiet eye technique and exercises that allow one to learn to estimate CB roll and contact points lead to the consistency needed for excellent play.
Methods are also used to learn to control the CB roll for position as this is part of the overall aiming process. There are many things that are "aimed" when playing pool and each can use specific methods.
A system says to aim at this spot a method says to aim in this way (such as line up the centers). I suspect that methods lead to better overall play while systems are for particular problems. To confuse the issue slightly (and I think there is much discussion about this) a system can evolve into a method that is more or less useful depending upon the effort and skill of the player.
Personally, I prefer methods, such as Stan and Colin present.
There are an infinite number of shots so no system can yield exact results. Various methods work for learning to shoot well. To some extent, Stan's method is a place to start the aiming process.
In many situations there is no aim point and the margin of error is quite small given the size of the balls, their contact points and the distances involved. The contact point on an OB cannot be seen in most situations. It must be mentally visualized or created by the perceptual processes. In this sense one can train the eye to make fine gradations. Aiming systems are ways to begin to estimate these points. In the end, the perceptual process must be trained to learn how to aim the front of the CB to contact a non-existent point on the OB. I think that this is what people mean by "feel."
Methods teach us an approach to the aiming process. The remainder is about training the perceptual functions to make fine distinctions. Techniques such the quiet eye technique and exercises that allow one to learn to estimate CB roll and contact points lead to the consistency needed for excellent play.
Methods are also used to learn to control the CB roll for position as this is part of the overall aiming process. There are many things that are "aimed" when playing pool and each can use specific methods.
A system says to aim at this spot a method says to aim in this way (such as line up the centers). I suspect that methods lead to better overall play while systems are for particular problems. To confuse the issue slightly (and I think there is much discussion about this) a system can evolve into a method that is more or less useful depending upon the effort and skill of the player.
Personally, I prefer methods, such as Stan and Colin present.
Last edited:
JoeW said:
Nice post, Joe. I might quibble with exactly what constitutes a system vs. a method, and I might say that some, like Stan's, are both - but I think you make some important and accurate distinctions (that will be largely lost in translation here).
pj
chgo
"Hard" and "Easy" shots
Hard and easy shots are best defined by the total amount that a shot can be less than perfect and still fall in a pocket. This is best measured by degrees and minutes, angular measurements not linear. If it were possible for you to comprehend the difference between hard and easy we might be able to progress from there but your belief that easy shots can be hard is a contradiction in terms.
As I stated, I just tested an aiming system. It was over 90% successful, on a pool table playing actual shots.
Read the part in red as many times as necessary to understand it. No math, no physics, actual empirical testing. When I played pool as it is normally played, making a ball and trying to achieve shape on future shots, the system was over 90% effective. The percentage was actually higher than that but I didn't keep an exact count nor do I consider the little bit of time I used the system an adequate sampling. A friend that likes to play pool but is an absolute banger is unavailable to play for a few weeks. When he is available and if he is willing to try it that should be a better test of the system.
From years in R&D I have learned that it is much easier to set up and develop testing procedures than it is to formulate theory accurately in most instances. In every instance I have first hand knowledge of, when empirical testing conflicted with the calculated results the calculated results were what were in error. The quick explanation was "garbage in, garbage out" however that wasn't usually the truth. The usual explanation for the theoretical results not matching real world results was that the calculations and brainstorming left out factors. I suspect that is the biggest source of conflict between the people that believe that one system or another is highly effective and those that don't are missing factors.
Statements like the above are so patently false that it is best that you do duck and run at this point. I suspect there is nobody else other than yourself reading this that doesn't comprehend that aiming systems work far better with an easy shot, (IE the ball three inches in front of the corner pocket you are trying to make it in) than a hard shot. (IE the object ball is six feet away from the pocket) Any aiming system I have ever seen pockets the first ball, the weakness of aiming systems using fixed points often comes to light when dealing with the second shot. Both are real world shots, taken from the last time I played one pocket.
Hu
Hard and easy shots are best defined by the total amount that a shot can be less than perfect and still fall in a pocket. This is best measured by degrees and minutes, angular measurements not linear. If it were possible for you to comprehend the difference between hard and easy we might be able to progress from there but your belief that easy shots can be hard is a contradiction in terms.
As I stated, I just tested an aiming system. It was over 90% successful, on a pool table playing actual shots.
Read the part in red as many times as necessary to understand it. No math, no physics, actual empirical testing. When I played pool as it is normally played, making a ball and trying to achieve shape on future shots, the system was over 90% effective. The percentage was actually higher than that but I didn't keep an exact count nor do I consider the little bit of time I used the system an adequate sampling. A friend that likes to play pool but is an absolute banger is unavailable to play for a few weeks. When he is available and if he is willing to try it that should be a better test of the system.
From years in R&D I have learned that it is much easier to set up and develop testing procedures than it is to formulate theory accurately in most instances. In every instance I have first hand knowledge of, when empirical testing conflicted with the calculated results the calculated results were what were in error. The quick explanation was "garbage in, garbage out" however that wasn't usually the truth. The usual explanation for the theoretical results not matching real world results was that the calculations and brainstorming left out factors. I suspect that is the biggest source of conflict between the people that believe that one system or another is highly effective and those that don't are missing factors.
Patrick Johnson said:
Statements like the above are so patently false that it is best that you do duck and run at this point. I suspect there is nobody else other than yourself reading this that doesn't comprehend that aiming systems work far better with an easy shot, (IE the ball three inches in front of the corner pocket you are trying to make it in) than a hard shot. (IE the object ball is six feet away from the pocket) Any aiming system I have ever seen pockets the first ball, the weakness of aiming systems using fixed points often comes to light when dealing with the second shot. Both are real world shots, taken from the last time I played one pocket.
Hu
PJ said, "Nice post, Joe. I might quibble with exactly what constitutes a system vs. a method, and I might say that some, like Stan's, are both - but I think you make some important and accurate distinctions (that will be largely lost in translation here)."
I agree, better definitions could be constructed. I was attempting to stay within the context of the thread. I think that if people will think through the types of aiming procedures that more progress could be made.
Perhaps better terms might be "spot aiming" and "aiming methods." Spot aiming can be incorporated (at times) into a method to yield a "system." And of course, as you point out, this is what some people do. None-the-less, some approaches are primarily methodological and some are not.
I agree, better definitions could be constructed. I was attempting to stay within the context of the thread. I think that if people will think through the types of aiming procedures that more progress could be made.
Perhaps better terms might be "spot aiming" and "aiming methods." Spot aiming can be incorporated (at times) into a method to yield a "system." And of course, as you point out, this is what some people do. None-the-less, some approaches are primarily methodological and some are not.
Playing pool as it's normally played isn't really a test that tells us much. We don't really know if the system is 90% effective or you are (with or without the system). And even if we do know which it is, we don't know why the system is effective, which is really what this is all about. We already know that systems work (I say it in just about every post) - we're discussing how they work.
So you know what I mean about controls. Did you control your test so that we could tell whether it's the system or your skills that are working? How about so we can tell how the system works (with or without adjustments)?
Finally, you've said what you mean by "easy". I was assuming you meant another definition (cut angle, as you said). I've done some thinking about the distance issue and can shed some light here.
Here's a chart showing the number of cut angles necessary to make all possible shots from various distances into pockets of various sizes. Using this chart we can figure out what percentage of all possible shots will go from various distances using certain systems.
So, for instance, a Fractional Aiming system that defines 5 cut angles (full, 3/4-ball, 1/2-ball, 1/4-ball, thin) will cover the following percentages of shots into a 5-inch pocket:
From 6 inches: 5/3 = >100% (some overlap)
From 12 inches: 5/7 = 71%
From 24 inches: 5/14 = 36%
From 36 inches: 5/21 = 24%
From 48 inches: 5/27 = 19%
You can see that this system only covers all shots without adjustments when the OB is less than 12 inches from the pocket (I think it's really less than 9 inches). By the time the OB is 2 feet from the pocket the system only covers about 1/3 of all shots. So common Fractional Aiming systems obviously must include some adjustment for the vast majority of shots in an actual game. Even Joe Tucker's system, with 10 cut angles per 1/4 ball (the most that I know of), only covers all the shots if the shot distance is less than 18 inches (into a 5-inch pocket). To his credit, Joe teaches his students to adjust with "in between" angles to cover the rest of the shots at greater distances.
This same principle applies in different ways to all systems - because all systems define a relatively small number of ways to align shots (cut angles). That's their purpose: to simplify that process by reducing the possibilities from infinite to something more manageable.
Which system did you test? How does it reduce the number of choices the player must make?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Hello Stan i borrowed a recording from a friend and i just seen you and your Prodigy during the World Summit Of Pool. Been watching all your vids on YouTube alot. Was thinking about taking up Tims School. Knowledge Is Power.
What i learned over the years of trying to develope the perfect aiming system is if i am in line with the shot and get down in the correct alignment and my practice strokes are center cueball. All i have to do is look at my aim point, now when i switch my eyes to the contact point a different point no the aim point this is where things go wrong. One night i spent a few hours on the table without looking at the cueball at all. I know how hard that is to do, but give it a try. Just trust yourself and i was pocketing everything on the table dead center in the pockets. So if you are a player who looks at the quarter of the cueball to aim or even the edge i find it personally better not to do any practice strokes when switching your eyes back and forth from the cueball to the objectball.
What i learned over the years of trying to develope the perfect aiming system is if i am in line with the shot and get down in the correct alignment and my practice strokes are center cueball. All i have to do is look at my aim point, now when i switch my eyes to the contact point a different point no the aim point this is where things go wrong. One night i spent a few hours on the table without looking at the cueball at all. I know how hard that is to do, but give it a try. Just trust yourself and i was pocketing everything on the table dead center in the pockets. So if you are a player who looks at the quarter of the cueball to aim or even the edge i find it personally better not to do any practice strokes when switching your eyes back and forth from the cueball to the objectball.
Last edited:
So, for instance, a Fractional Aiming system that defines 5 cut angles (full, 3/4-ball, 1/2-ball, 1/4 ball, thin) will cover the following percentages of shots into a 5-inch pocket:
From 6 inches: 5/3 = >100% (some overlap)
From 12 inches: 5/7 = 71%
From 24 inches: 5/14 = 36%
From 36 inches: 5/21 = 24%
From 48 inches: 5/27 = 19%
You can see that this system only covers all shots without adjustments when the OB is less than 12 inches from the pocket. By the time the OB is 2 feet from the pocket the system only covers about 1/3 of all shots. So common Fractional Aiming systems obviously must include some adjustment for the vast majority of shots in an actual game.
This same principle applies in different ways to all systems - because all systems define a relatively small number of ways to align shots (cut angles). That's their purpose: to simplify that process by reducing the possibilities from infinite to something more manageable.
Which system did you test? How does it reduce the number of choices the player must make?
pj
chgo[/QUOTE]
Patrick,
I don't understand how you come up with percentages for making a shot based on the above diagram. What I get from the diagram is that from a certain distance - hitting at a certain sized pocket you would need the particular angle (numbers located in the middle of the chart) to pocket the ball. I don't think the chart has anything to do with making the ball or not. I understand what you are saying about things not being perfect. I am not looking for a perfect system because it does not exist or everyone would be world champions. I am looking for something that can make me more confident that I am hitting the ball in the right place. Feel is a must no one will deny that, but for a banger like myself I need something else to help. Thanks.
From 6 inches: 5/3 = >100% (some overlap)
From 12 inches: 5/7 = 71%
From 24 inches: 5/14 = 36%
From 36 inches: 5/21 = 24%
From 48 inches: 5/27 = 19%
You can see that this system only covers all shots without adjustments when the OB is less than 12 inches from the pocket. By the time the OB is 2 feet from the pocket the system only covers about 1/3 of all shots. So common Fractional Aiming systems obviously must include some adjustment for the vast majority of shots in an actual game.
This same principle applies in different ways to all systems - because all systems define a relatively small number of ways to align shots (cut angles). That's their purpose: to simplify that process by reducing the possibilities from infinite to something more manageable.
Which system did you test? How does it reduce the number of choices the player must make?
pj
chgo[/QUOTE]
Patrick,
I don't understand how you come up with percentages for making a shot based on the above diagram. What I get from the diagram is that from a certain distance - hitting at a certain sized pocket you would need the particular angle (numbers located in the middle of the chart) to pocket the ball. I don't think the chart has anything to do with making the ball or not. I understand what you are saying about things not being perfect. I am not looking for a perfect system because it does not exist or everyone would be world champions. I am looking for something that can make me more confident that I am hitting the ball in the right place. Feel is a must no one will deny that, but for a banger like myself I need something else to help. Thanks.
Razorback Randy said:
Sorry, the chart should say "Number of Cut Angles Needed". In other words, the minimum number of system-defined cut angles you need in order to cover all possible shots from that distance.
I've re-labeled the chart above to correct this confusion.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
