Where is the CB going

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
How do you determine where the CB goes after hitting the OB? Take into consideration all types of spin that can be used on the CB.

Contact point, Fractions, double distance…what method.

When someone uses the end of the stick in incidate where they want the CB….is it where they want the contact point, so called edge or fraction of the CB?
 

8pack

They call me 2 county !
Silver Member
I wrote something in the silly pro1 cures a bad stroke thread, no one even replied. It was meant for JB but anyone could of answered. The cb position for the next shot will always determine how you aim at the OB. Pro1 is kinda like going at it backwards.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I wrote something in the silly pro1 cures a bad stroke thread, no one even replied. It was meant for JB but anyone could of answered. The cb position for the next shot will always determine how you aim at the OB. Pro1 is kinda like going at it backwards.
How is getting the exact center ball hit and then making the adjustment for English doing it backwards?
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
How do you determine where the CB goes after hitting the OB? Take into consideration all types of spin that can be used on the CB.

Contact point, Fractions, double distance…what method.

When someone uses the end of the stick in incidate where they want the CB….is it where they want the contact point, so called edge or fraction of the CB?
How do you aim a half ball shot?

pj
chgo
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Step one I must pocket the ball. Step two where does cb need to be next. Analyze how to get it there. Can it just be cueball only or do I need a rail? How many rails, how to make cb behave to get there. How to widen or thin angle? Is this the best way to come into the large part of wedge? If not am I confident I will get pinpoint shape? Now execute if in a match, if it looks like I’m asking too much how can I play safe? Am I in the zone? If so let’s just see what my subconscious comes up with if the risk isn’t too high. This follows with, ah I got shape or ah this is a tough shot but at least I’m at the table and still in control and able to play safe.
I use no system other than looking at how it will work. If you can’t do this yet, practice until you can, I still am.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I wrote something in the silly pro1 cures a bad stroke thread, no one even replied. It was meant for JB but anyone could of answered. The cb position for the next shot will always determine how you aim at the OB. Pro1 is kinda like going at it backwards.
Sorry I missed it. This is a valid point but not for what you claim. The whole point of aiming is to determine how to find an accurate line that achieves the goal of pocketing the ball AND allowing the cueball to go where you want it. You mentioned that people have to learn to "gear" (throw) the object ball. This is correct and I have made several videos on this subject.

The important point is that you have to be clear as to where the cueball is going to hit the object ball and thus be able to figure where the object ball is going to go. So any aiming system has the goal of providing a clear path with center ball from which all adjustments can be made.

Most top instructors will say if you can get shape with the natural angle then do that. Adding spin to the process complicates the aiming but it is totally manageable with a baseline no-spin shotline that the shooter is very confident is correct. From that baseline it becomes clear what balance of aiming "wrong", i.e. not on a shot line that would result in a pocketed ball with no spin, and spin is required to both make the ball and play shape.

I think that a lot of pool instruction is backwards in this respect. You are absolutely right that it's all about the cueball. ALL OF IT.

The cueball is the ONLY target. It is the only thing that the user can manipulate directly. The object ball is indirectly manipulated in a secondary action after the cueball is struck. So to that end the player has to understand what the cueball does when struck and aim accordingly to put the cueball into the right space. Well that's easy to say but what exactly is correct aiming and how does one KNOW that they are correctly aimed?

That's where aiming systems come in. No matter what they are called, no matter what the steps are, they are all designed to help the shooter decide on a line to put the cue on and a spot on the cueball to strike. The user has to be aware of many variables, chalk on the tip, the amount of deflection of their cue, the condition of the equipment, etc....so anything that helps them to narrow their focus and be consistent in choosing the correct lines is a good thing. No aiming system though will ever account for all of the variables and we probably wouldn't want one that does because pool would get really boring.

What an aiming system does, at least what it does for me, is allow me to find a baseline and "see" the tangent line clearly. That tells me where the cueball is going right off the hit. Thus I can know based on my experience how it then deviates from that tangent line with various speed and the use of top and bottom spin. If the user then determines that they need to apply spin for position purposes then they can adjust off that baseline in the direction needed.

Trying to do all this by feel alone produces inconsistent results. Doing it systematically by having a method that uses as much objectivity as possible, based on as many objective references as possible, produces a much higher degree of consistency.

The question for me is whether the critics and the jerks here are willing to be part of improving the techniques used and improving the understanding of those techniques in service to growing pool OR do they want to be cryptic and arrogant in their proclamations telling others that they are wrong and self-deluded without ever offering an alternative? So far all I see is the latter.

There is a major difference between being someone who runs a lot of balls telling others they are doing it wrong and someone who runs a lot of balls telling people how they do what they are doing.

I am part of many leather groups. I could post pictures of our great leatherwork whenever I see someone post their leatherwork that is done wrong and say, look this is right, you're wrong, figure it out. OR what I do instead is post pictures of how we solved the issue with step by step instructions on how to do it. Maybe they use our method, maybe they don't but they have the instructions to try it if they want to. And when they do they might find that our solution works great for them. In that way we contribute to the body of knowleldge available to everyone instead of being selfish assholes who only want to gloat about how great we are in comparison to those who haven't yet reached our level.

Or worse, when they post pictures of their great leatherwork I could post pictures of our great leatherwork and tell them they did their wrong. That would make me not only an asshole but additionally a pompous one.

I feel like the purpose of these forums is to share knowledge and explore concepts together to figure out what works well, what doesn't, what can be refined and improved, and what might be invented by the culture of shared creation. Maybe I am being naive and humans are just so innately selfish that my hope is just silly wishful thinking. Then again on the leatherworking forums we all freely share knowledge and some of the greatest leatherworkers on the planet are there to help and advise the members. And sometimes a new leatherworker will figure out a new way to do something that the old guard learns from. It is an amazing dynamic that could be present here if people would change their minds about the purpose of the forums.
 

8pack

They call me 2 county !
Silver Member
There are 2 types of aiming.
1 center ball.
2. Outside center ball.

It would be nice to get things done with just center but its almost impossible to get out shooting that way.

When going outside center the point to the pocket is the strongest thing we have.

I'm not going to go over every possibility it presents because there are many, actually all you'll ever need.

Manipulating the cb with different speeds, distances off 1 point is strong.

You get feedback from that, let's you know
speed was wrong, maybe to much spin but you'll find the right solution for the best outcome if you practice it enough .
 

CocoboloCowboy

Cowboys are my heros.
Silver Member
Sorry I missed it. This is a valid point but not for what you claim. The whole point of aiming is to determine how to find an accurate line that achieves the goal of pocketing the ball AND allowing the cueball to go where you want it. You mentioned that people have to learn to "gear" (throw) the object ball. This is correct and I have made several videos on this subject.

The important point is that you have to be clear as to where the cueball is going to hit the object ball and thus be able to figure where the object ball is going to go. So any aiming system has the goal of providing a clear path with center ball from which all adjustments can be made.

Most top instructors will say if you can get shape with the natural angle then do that. Adding spin to the process complicates the aiming but it is totally manageable with a baseline no-spin shotline that the shooter is very confident is correct. From that baseline it becomes clear what balance of aiming "wrong", i.e. not on a shot line that would result in a pocketed ball with no spin, and spin is required to both make the ball and play shape.

I think that a lot of pool instruction is backwards in this respect. You are absolutely right that it's all about the cueball. ALL OF IT.

The cueball is the ONLY target. It is the only thing that the user can manipulate directly. The object ball is indirectly manipulated in a secondary action after the cueball is struck. So to that end the player has to understand what the cueball does when struck and aim accordingly to put the cueball into the right space. Well that's easy to say but what exactly is correct aiming and how does one KNOW that they are correctly aimed?

That's where aiming systems come in. No matter what they are called, no matter what the steps are, they are all designed to help the shooter decide on a line to put the cue on and a spot on the cueball to strike. The user has to be aware of many variables, chalk on the tip, the amount of deflection of their cue, the condition of the equipment, etc....so anything that helps them to narrow their focus and be consistent in choosing the correct lines is a good thing. No aiming system though will ever account for all of the variables and we probably wouldn't want one that does because pool would get really boring.

What an aiming system does, at least what it does for me, is allow me to find a baseline and "see" the tangent line clearly. That tells me where the cueball is going right off the hit. Thus I can know based on my experience how it then deviates from that tangent line with various speed and the use of top and bottom spin. If the user then determines that they need to apply spin for position purposes then they can adjust off that baseline in the direction needed.

Trying to do all this by feel alone produces inconsistent results. Doing it systematically by having a method that uses as much objectivity as possible, based on as many objective references as possible, produces a much higher degree of consistency.

The question for me is whether the critics and the jerks here are willing to be part of improving the techniques used and improving the understanding of those techniques in service to growing pool OR do they want to be cryptic and arrogant in their proclamations telling others that they are wrong and self-deluded without ever offering an alternative? So far all I see is the latter.

There is a major difference between being someone who runs a lot of balls telling others they are doing it wrong and someone who runs a lot of balls telling people how they do what they are doing.

I am part of many leather groups. I could post pictures of our great leatherwork whenever I see someone post their leatherwork that is done wrong and say, look this is right, you're wrong, figure it out. OR what I do instead is post pictures of how we solved the issue with step by step instructions on how to do it. Maybe they use our method, maybe they don't but they have the instructions to try it if they want to. And when they do they might find that our solution works great for them. In that way we contribute to the body of knowleldge available to everyone instead of being selfish assholes who only want to gloat about how great we are in comparison to those who haven't yet reached our level.

Or worse, when they post pictures of their great leatherwork I could post pictures of our great leatherwork and tell them they did their wrong. That would make me not only an asshole but additionally a pompous one.

I feel like the purpose of these forums is to share knowledge and explore concepts together to figure out what works well, what doesn't, what can be refined and improved, and what might be invented by the culture of shared creation. Maybe I am being naive and humans are just so innately selfish that my hope is just silly wishful thinking. Then again on the leatherworking forums we all freely share knowledge and some of the greatest leatherworkers on the planet are there to help and advise the members. And sometimes a new leatherworker will figure out a new way to do something that the old guard learns from. It is an amazing dynamic that could be present here if people would change their minds about the purpose of the forums.

About 100% truth about sharing knowledge, and ideas. New eye sometime make new discoveries.

Israel uses people with autism as intelligence annalists. Why, they they see thing differently, and find things normal folk miss.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
There are 2 types of aiming.
1 center ball.
2. Outside center ball.

It would be nice to get things done with just center but its almost impossible to get out shooting that way.

When going outside center the point to the pocket is the strongest thing we have.

I'm not going to go over every possibility it presents because there are many, actually all you'll ever need.

Manipulating the cb with different speeds, distances off 1 point is strong.

You get feedback from that, let's you know
speed was wrong, maybe to much spin but you'll find the right solution for the best outcome if you practice it enough .
Well I slightly disagree. I think that there is one type of aiming and variables within that one type that shooters need to learn how to adjust for. I also don't agree that the contact point is the strongest thing we have for aiming with side spin. I think that the contact point actually distorts the process quite a bit because there is no actual point to be seen. Thus we only get to draw a line from the pocket through the object ball standing behind that line and then we are expected to "hold" the "point" perfectly in our vision as we walk to a different angle. The point shifts with perspective which is why the shots that are at shallow angles are considered easier than those at large angles. BUT then not all low angle shots are easy either because then distance is in play. That is the problem with contact point aiming. Works great if you're really good at estimating the offset to achieve the right hit on the object ball. Not so great if you have any vision issues or have a hard time focusing on some small "point" that is actually invisible.

Of course feedback is necessary. No matter what aiming method one uses feedback is important to figure out what adjustments are needed. And testing for efficacy.

If I have ten different jump cues and I set up a series of shots then the main variable between them is ME. I can be fairly confident that I can try each cue with each shot with about the same aim and delivery. So I will quickly see which of those cues I am most comfortable with. And I will see which cues perform best on which types of shots. So if I can only have one then I will choose the one that gives me the best balance between ease of use and range of makeable shots. I don't see it any differently with aiming systems, stroke techniques, tip shapes/types, chalk types, etc.... In some cases people take it upon themselves to do testing that they present to the public which may or may not be helpful to others. In other cases it's purely anecdotal.

You said, "how I aim doesn't matter to anyone else." Absolutely correct when you are not discussing aiming with anyone else. When you choose to discuss it then how you aim does matter. Because "just do it" is the lowest possible form of advice/instruction and is the level of advice that generally produces the most inconsistent results. It is exactly worth as much as telling someone to "hit a million balls" in order to get good. The more directed our efforts are the better the results will be.
 

8pack

They call me 2 county !
Silver Member
Nope 2 kinds.

Center ball...let's these aiming systems breath a little.

Outside center...hardly any aiming system will fit the bill. You are absolutely making the shot harder than it is .
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nope 2 kinds.

Center ball...let's these aiming systems breath a little.

Outside center...hardly any aiming system will fit the bill. You are absolutely making the shot harder than it is .
Not sure what that means and probably not going to get an explanation either.......
 

8pack

They call me 2 county !
Silver Member
Not sure what that means and probably not going to get an explanation either.......
[/QUOTE

Translation
===========
Most aiming systems will fail you going outside center. Good luck if trying to do so.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
8pack
Most aiming systems will fail you going outside center. Good luck if trying to do so.
I think all aiming systems (except maybe the "magical" ones like CTE) assume they need to be corrected for squirt/throw. That doesn't mean they "failed" - it means they got you close enough to make your own adjustment.

pj
chgo
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nope 2 kinds.

Center ball...let's these aiming systems breath a little.

Outside center...hardly any aiming system will fit the bill. You are absolutely making the shot harder than it is .
JB Cases said:
Not sure what that means and probably not going to get an explanation either.......
[/QUOTE

Translation
===========
Most aiming systems will fail you going outside center. Good luck if trying to do so.

Ok, I think I get what you are saying here. Please correct me if I have misstated it but as I see it you are saying that IF the shooter wants/needs to hit the cueball with sidespin then most aiming systems will fail to provide the correct shot line and subsequently the shot will fail because of the use of the aiming system?

If so this is my answer and it echoes what I have stated before.

Side spin changes the shot by the addition of more variables. Specifically deflection, squirt and swerve. So with that I agree that merely aiming for a centerball hit and then shifting to add sidespin can significantly alter the path of the cue ball and cause a miss. However the failure is not in the aiming system at that point, the failure is in the user's inability to correctly adjust from the baseline center ball aim to account for the extra variables. Without any sort of systematic way to account for these variables the shooter has to rely on their experience and familiarity with their equipment. But starting with a baseline aim that is dead on for center ball gives them a solid starting point and the actual body-alignment adjustment needed even for the most extreme spin is fairly small. And if a user is adept at backhand/fronthand english then a very wide range of shots are makeable with control without needing to reposition the body.

When we talk about experience we mean literal practice. The art of discovery and the cataloging of what works and what doesn't. Anytime you have a base line, even something like setting up a shot that is marked with hole reinforcers so that you can try every possible combination of aim, speed and spin is an example of using a baseline reference to acquire and retain actionable knowledge.

Stan has said hundreds of time that spin changes the shot. He has remarked that "all bets are off when spin is used". That's an overstatement but to me it means that without sufficient knowledge of the variables and equipment performance adding spin is guessing. So in that vein I agree with you that "most aiming systems (which provide a center ball shot line) will fail you going outside of center." This is because going outside of center is literally outside of the parameters of what the system does. That said, I believe that learning to use spin consistently, even systematically is possible and is made easier when the user is using a center-ball shot line system to get that first solid aim line.

In other words, starting with a marked shot the user can use the aiming system to establish the path for the center ball hit. Once that is known then they can shoot it with various speeds. Then with top and bottom at speed. Then start adding in spin around the clock with various speeds. This is the sort of practice that builds solid knowledge and it starts with the establishment of a shot line that can be counted on to be correct at center ball. And I feel that there are ways aim systematically for spin application because of the establishment of a correct center ball shot line. For example if I were to find though this method of practice that I could sight the cueball edge to a particular portion of the ball when I wanted to add one tip of right and that would pocket the ball and result in the expected shape then I could test that in various situations and see if it holds up consistently or not. In other words I think that a person can build a library of adjustments that are systematic and which they could demonstrate on demand. Hand them an unfamiliar cue the they would start with their baseline, use the adjustment they know to work with their equipment and make a tweak if needed and check it and thus be able to adapt to a different cue in a very short amount of time.

Hunter Lombardo and myself had this very conversation last year in Charlotte when I spent a day with him training. He showed me that he could pick up any cue and be accurate with it within a few minutes simply by starting with the baseline and noting the deflection and adjusting accordingly. Specifically, he said the adjustment can be as simple as moving the focus from directly on a reference line to just outside of it or just inside of it. He demonstrated this more than adequately using a variety of cues that we had available from el cheapo tree trunk with a 20 year old dried out tip to the latest predator carbon fiber. Within just a few shots he was nailing "tough" cut shots with spin from mild to extreme and positioning the cue ball exactly where he intended.

One thing he said which I found to be pretty awesome is that he often doesn't even take his cues when he trains his clients. He uses their cues to demonstrate and show them that it's not the cue that is doing the work. It is the human directing the cue that decides what to look at and where the eyes lead the body to. That's not to say that he doesn't understand that some cues are more dependable with how much deflection they produce and thus reduces the variability considerably.

In the 90s we had Rafael Martinez do a clinic for a week. This was when Predator cues were fairly new with the first gen spliced shafts. One of our students asked Rafael if he really liked Predator shafts or was just being paid to say he liked them. He said first that he wasn't paid, they just gave him shafts to use if he wanted to. Secondly he said, the ball goes where I point with the Predator shaft. He didn't elaborate on any sort of aiming method he simply said that the shaft gave him confidence that the result would match his expectation.

Now, all that said, I think that we have been approaching aiming somewhat wrong. The question duckie asked and which is the same question that Joey asked and which is the same assertion you made is how does the desired cue ball path affect aiming. This is a valid and important question but not in terms of invalidating aiming systems. Instead it compliments aiming systems because once a person has a clear visual path for the cueball to the object ball that they know is correct they can then trace the path of the cueball mentally. That ALLOWS them a clarity of thought to say that from here this is likely to do that. Which means that in a game situation they can literally work out the correct combination of aim, speed and spin to have a very good chance of getting the successful result they want EVEN IF they have never practiced that particular shot before.

In the past we have seen systems or principles like the clock system for applying spin which claims that using particular "hours and half hours" produces a diamond, two diamonds of travel....etc... But often these methods don't really address how to aim and they assume that the shooter will figure it out. Not many of them go into depth about how to aim adjusted for the applied spin. And for me this is why so many instructors and people say avoid spin whenever possible. This attitude creates the sort of dichotomy that you present, aiming systems are fine for center ball hits but FAIL when you need spin. To me we need to have a better and deeper understanding of aiming that systematically catalogs what does what FROM the center ball baseline. For example I have made videos where I have shown backhand english, I have made videos where I show that I can deliberately aim completely wrong and "spin" (gear) the object ball into the pocket.

cont.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
We have to approach aiming as a full spectrum activity that starts with a clear baseline and is layered with incremental choices based on a systematic approach. Doing so informs our brains in a much more ordered fashion and is what allows us to approach the desired state of either just seeing it without much conscious thought OR being able to accurately work out the right aim/spin when deliberate conscious thought is used to address the task.
I can't stand it when people take the 'hit a million balls and it will all come to you' approach. We can do much better than that NOW. We don't have to condemn the majority of players to guessing-game hell and tell them that they haven't "paid their dues" and the like. We have the capability to dissect all proposed methods and test them for the efficacy. We have the collaborative capability and the tech in our hands to work out what really works well and what doesn't. And most importantly for me is that we have the opportunity to all work TOGETHER to create a clear library of best practices that isn't based on "feelings" and "conjecture" and the idea that Luther Lassiter played world class without "fancy aiming systems" and "fancy shafts/tips/gloves". Yes, previous generations played GREAT with the equipment and knowledge they had. But we can play great now with less wasted effort on the journey to playing great. And arguing the way it's been done here in this forum is counterproductive to that.
It's not enough to say someone is wrong. We have the means to create the world's most comprehensive knowledge base on aiming without mocking, without cryptic proclamations, and without hype. But if people believe that aiming is more art than science then we can't have that. I used to believe that aiming was ONLY a result of trial and error with a sprinkle of ghostball thrown in. For real, the GB concept is clear but where it really breaks down is the "corrected" part which means mostly guessing. Let's reduce the guessing as much as humanly possible and then the average skill level among players will rise to the benefit of all of us.
 
Top