Your aiming technique

[DoomCue]

Rich93 posted:**SNIP**

How is this not an aiming system??
Shot #1: A very slight cut almost the full length of the table.

Player standing over shot and analyzing what he sees: "Hmmm, this shot is just a little off from being straight in. I'm going to have to contact it a hair from center. If I hit it straight dead center, it misses. If I go too far over from center, I overcut and it misses.

Player now down over shot either lining up tip of cue to spot on OB or lining up CB just a hair off center. (going back and forth from dead center hit to overcut and then back to somewhere in between) and silently confirms to himself...'That's it, dead on.'

You're using experience to tell you that it's a thick or thin cut and how thin you have to hit it. You then line up the CB and or Cue to accomodate the angle and strike the OB where it needs to be hit. That's an aiming system.
**SNIP**

When most people talk about aiming systems, they're talking about some great unifying theory of aiming into which you can pigeonhole someone's personal aiming technique. Everyone uses their own PERSONAL aiming technique, which means that they're not using a prescribed (pigeonholed) aiming system. Every good player reaches a facility with aiming that becomes unconscious through experience. You can't teach experience, but you can teach an aiming system. Hopefully, the student learns the system(s) and ingrains them into a personal technique. That means those rote systems would have been replaced by UNDERSTANDING. That's what proponents of aiming systems miss - the understanding part, and each person understands things in a different way. That's what makes us individuals. We all see things differently, and we all think differently.

As an example, I used to tutor calculus in college. I could teach somebody HOW to do a differential or an integral, and tell them about slopes and areas, but to most people, those equations are just numbers and letters on a page waiting to be manipulated into other numbers and letters. To someone who UNDERSTANDS the mathematics, those numbers represent rates of change, areas, volumes, etc. Those are facts, but there is a sharp difference between KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING the facts. Teaching a system to calculate differentials or integrals does not mean a student understands the math, although a certain facility can be reached. The level of expert, however, can never be reached without achieving understanding.

To me, a person has reached an understanding of his personal aiming technique when he no longer has to consciously think about it. Does that mean he's still using ghost ball, or railroad tracks, or edge to edge, or clicks, or whatever millionth name we give to describe what it is we do at the table? Nope - it just means that in order to start somebody down the path of learning, or help the learning curve, we've tried to turn an unconscious act into something which can be explained in words and pictures.

-djb

 

[cuenut]

I concur. I can't imagine how it is possible to aim if one is not looking at one's target while shooting. Like every other player I know, I look back and forth between the OB and cueball while I practice stroke, but when I actually pull the trigger I am deadsighted on that OB all the way through. I have to be, because I have to be aiming when I actually shoot, and I'm not aiming if I'm not looking at my target.

I think it would be kind of hard to hit a deer if you are busy looking at the bow and arrow! When I am not shooting well, it is usually because of two things: I am not keeping my eye on the object ball when I pull the trigger, or I am standing up early. This whole post is getting from a "B" or so level to an "A". You have to have put in some pretty serious table time to get to the "B" level, so it would seem obvious that you can figure out where you need to hit the object ball. From there, it is pure technique, concentration, and execution, not aiming, in my opinion.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[VIProfessor]

I think that aiming systems may be useful in terms of teaching someone to play and giving them a starting point from which they can teach themselves the proper sight pictures and contact points. In terms of actually playing the game at a high level, however, aiming has got to be done by feel. The variables of throw, cue elevation, deflection, and speed that go into shooting an object ball are much to complex to be calculated by the conscious mind. It can only be done by the right hemisphere of the brain and by the feel that comes from repetition.

In my opinion, the vast majority of shots missed by C players and above come not from a deficiency in aiming, but from flaws in alignment or stroke delivery. Make sure you spend enough time at the table, check your alignment and setup, follow a good preshot routine, and deliver a smooth, straight stroke while staying down on the shot. If you do those things you can be practically guaranteed that the balls will fall!

 

[PW92174]

IMHO.....Almost all of the well known aiming systems work if you are playing normal speed with center cue ball, but Advanced players are rarely able to use these aiming systems with any success. Once you begin to move the cue ball around the table using english, the throw from contacting the cue ball alone will destroy most aiming systems not to mention swerve, Humidity, and many other playing condition changes. The bottom line is that (and I hate to admit it) there is no aiming system in that will ever replace good old fashion practice. It takes years to develop the feel for some shots.

 

[seymore15074]

Well, if you think looking at the object ball last is a load of crap thats fine for you. Take a poll, I think you may learn something different.

I do think that you could shoot without looking at anything particular, but tell me one person that shoots a rifle at their target after lining up and taking their eye off of it...so basically, I agree, it can be generalized to the point of saying that you have to look at the object ball last...

 

[seymore15074]

(old post, but I still want to point this out)

A few observations....its not your stroke. I mean up to a certain point it isnt. And I think a simple illustration shows this. I see a lot of ok players with beautiful strokes, but of course they miss a lot. And when they miss they inevitably look back at their arm and do the whole obligatory practice stroke after I miss thing. But I hate to tell them it isnt their stroke, its the fact that they have no consistent aiming technique therefore no real true consistent play..

You absolutely cannot identify a perfect stroke from looking at someone. The only one who knows that it is in fact perfect would be the player, and the only way to speculate that it may be perfect is to see results.

 

[whitey2]

Dispelling some of the analogies

First, let me say that I am not "cutting down" the process of looking at the object ball last.
On most shots I also do this.

But I've heard a lot of analogies over the years. I noticed that someone mentioned "shooting at a
deer", and I remember when I saw Eva Mataya-Laurance give an exhibition, she mentioned when
throwing a football, you wouldn't want to keep your eyes on the football.

BUT, none of these analogies are accurate. Shooting the cue ball is not like shooting a rifle or
throwing a football. If you had to throw (or suspend) the rifle in the air, then swing at it to
hit your target with it, that would be more accurate. Same with the football. In those cases the
item is secured in your hand. The cue ball is not. You are throwing/swinging the cue stick, at
the cue ball, at another target. So there are two targets present. One is closer and requires less
focus in most situations (the cue ball), but keep in mind there are two distinct targets involved.

 

[jondrums]

I have a unique opinion on aiming and systems, ect.

Systems are great for programming a computer to pocket a ball. They are also great for teaching a brand new player to pocket a ball. However if you want to get really good at pocketing balls, you've got to LEARN how to do it. And there are great ways to accelerate that learning process!

Humans are incredible input/output machines. We can take a complex situation with lots of variables, and over time, learn the right mixture of them to produce an outcome.

If anyone here knows about classical conditioning, skip this paragraph. In classical conditioning, lets say for dog training: you produce a stimulus, get a correct response, and provide a reward. An incorrect response recieves negative reinforcement (which can just be the lack of a reward). The dog's brain is very quick to connect the dots between the stimulus and the response because it really wants the reward. Before long, the reward is no longer needed and the response becomes "hard-wired". Only occasional rewards are needed to keep the connection solid.

How does this relate to pool? Well one previous poster mentioned that it is important to stay down on the shot. If there is one SYSTEM that is absolutely critical for a beginning pool player to use, its this: stay down over the shot until all the balls have come to rest, AND observe the result, undercut/made the ball/overcut/missed position/nailed position. Our brains are going to release a little endorphin when the ball is made, naturally reinforcing the actions which caused us to make the ball. To really accelerate the learning process, we need to learn from our mistakes - staying down on the shot forces the brain to keep observing the result, and file that away for next time.

Jon

 

[jondrums]

Oh I wanted to mention one more thing here.

I've often used the quarter ball aiming system to help hone my eye's natural aim. I'll set up a perfect half ball cut with markers for the ball places. Then I'll align up the shot using whatever internal method my brain uses (not quarterball system). Then without moving the cue, I'll check it be seeing if my aim is at the edge of the OB. I've often been able to retune my in-head "system" this way.

Jon

 

[Jimmy M.]

I have never seen a top player look at the cue ball last. I'm not saying that none do, or ever have, but I am saying that it's definitely not standard practice among the top players. If I were going to try to improve at any game or sport, the first thing I'd do is watch the best players to see what they do. Making a conscious decision to do the exact opposite of what 99.999% of the top players do just doesn't make much sense to me.

First, let me say that I am not "cutting down" the process of looking at the object ball last.
On most shots I also do this.

But I've heard a lot of analogies over the years. I noticed that someone mentioned "shooting at a
deer", and I remember when I saw Eva Mataya-Laurance give an exhibition, she mentioned when
throwing a football, you wouldn't want to keep your eyes on the football.

BUT, none of these analogies are accurate. Shooting the cue ball is not like shooting a rifle or
throwing a football. If you had to throw (or suspend) the rifle in the air, then swing at it to
hit your target with it, that would be more accurate. Same with the football. In those cases the
item is secured in your hand. The cue ball is not. You are throwing/swinging the cue stick, at
the cue ball, at another target. So there are two targets present. One is closer and requires less
focus in most situations (the cue ball), but keep in mind there are two distinct targets involved.

 

[whitey2]

Maybe you misread my post...

I have never seen a top player look at the cue ball last. I'm not saying that none do, or ever have, but I am saying that it's definitely not standard practice among the top players. If I were going to try to improve at any game or sport, the first thing I'd do is watch the best players to see what they do. Making a conscious decision to do the exact opposite of what 99.999% of the top players do just doesn't make much sense to me.

Maybe you misread my post... I said I look at the object ball last on most shots. BUT, watch
the pros when they shoot off the rail, masse' shots, jump shots, or if they are jacked up over
another ball, etc..

 

[Jaden]

Well, if you think looking at the object ball last is a load of crap thats fine for you. Take a poll, I think you may learn something different.

I didn't say looking at the OB last is a load of crap, I said that "saying that it is the only way is crap."

 

[3andstop]

What to look at last OB or CB

Forget aiming systems, or anything else related to how to envision the contact point for a moment. There are exceptions to every rule and there are a few exceptions to eyeing the object ball last as well. One that I use frequently has to do with long relatively straight in shots where you are jacked up some, for whatever reason and you have to hit it with some speed. In these cases, my last look WILL go to the cue ball to be sure there is absolutely no english (right/left) on the ball what-so-ever. Masse shots are another "look at the cue" last shots. And of course we could all make a ball without looking at the object ball when shooting a trick shot.

But forget the exceptions. You simply have got to be looking at the object ball when you stroke the shot. By stroke the shot perhaps I should have said when you contact the cue with your tip.

I'll go so far as to say if you are doing it any other way, and you are making shots, you just think you're not looking at the OB last but you are.

I don't care what the sport is, you have to be looking at your target when you shoot for crying out loud. Baseball pitchers, archers, bowlers, dart players, quarterbacks hitting receivers, basketball players .... geez, even trying to imagine not looking at your target when you shoot is nothing less than completely ridiculous.

 

[Jaden]

When most people talk about aiming systems, they're talking about some great unifying theory of aiming into which you can pigeonhole someone's personal aiming technique. Everyone uses their own PERSONAL aiming technique, which means that they're not using a prescribed (pigeonholed) aiming system. Every good player reaches a facility with aiming that becomes unconscious through experience. You can't teach experience, but you can teach an aiming system. Hopefully, the student learns the system(s) and ingrains them into a personal technique. That means those rote systems would have been replaced by UNDERSTANDING. That's what proponents of aiming systems miss - the understanding part, and each person understands things in a different way. That's what makes us individuals. We all see things differently, and we all think differently.

As an example, I used to tutor calculus in college. I could teach somebody HOW to do a differential or an integral, and tell them about slopes and areas, but to most people, those equations are just numbers and letters on a page waiting to be manipulated into other numbers and letters. To someone who UNDERSTANDS the mathematics, those numbers represent rates of change, areas, volumes, etc. Those are facts, but there is a sharp difference between KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING the facts. Teaching a system to calculate differentials or integrals does not mean a student understands the math, although a certain facility can be reached. The level of expert, however, can never be reached without achieving understanding.

To me, a person has reached an understanding of his personal aiming technique when he no longer has to consciously think about it. Does that mean he's still using ghost ball, or railroad tracks, or edge to edge, or clicks, or whatever millionth name we give to describe what it is we do at the table? Nope - it just means that in order to start somebody down the path of learning, or help the learning curve, we've tried to turn an unconscious act into something which can be explained in words and pictures.

-djb

Well put.

There;s nothing that needs to be added to that.

 

[Jaden]

I think that aiming systems may be useful in terms of teaching someone to play and giving them a starting point from which they can teach themselves the proper sight pictures and contact points. In terms of actually playing the game at a high level, however, aiming has got to be done by feel. The variables of throw, cue elevation, deflection, and speed that go into shooting an object ball are much to complex to be calculated by the conscious mind. It can only be done by the right hemisphere of the brain and by the feel that comes from repetition.

In my opinion, the vast majority of shots missed by C players and above come not from a deficiency in aiming, but from flaws in alignment or stroke delivery. Make sure you spend enough time at the table, check your alignment and setup, follow a good preshot routine, and deliver a smooth, straight stroke while staying down on the shot. If you do those things you can be practically guaranteed that the balls will fall!

This is a good way of putting it. If you work out your stroke so that you KNOW that your stroke is right, then when you stroke correctly and miss, you can be assured that it was your aim that was off and not your stroke, but if you can't be sure what is the cause either from a lack of confidence in your aim or a lack of skill in your stroke you will be rewarded for failure and never advance past a certain point and not know why.

 

[SPINDOKTOR]

Look at the cue or the object ball, what ever you feel confortable with, as long as the final delivery is acurate I dont think it matters, I focus on the object ball on delivery, and have no trouble hitting the cue ball exactly where I intent to, you may be differnt, If you use the line method I showed as long as you can stroke straight you dont have to look at the cue ball or object ball, you could watch some sexy thing walking across the room and still pocket the ball. Staying consistant is what really matters, there is no one size fits all, we all perceive things differntly..

The people I help I try to encourage them to focus on the target on delivery, if they cant do that and must focus on the cue ball, so be it.




SPINDOKTOR

 

[APA7]

Look at the cue or the object ball, what ever you feel confortable with, as long as the final delivery is acurate I dont think it matters, I focus on the object ball on delivery, and have no trouble hitting the cue ball exactly where I intent to, you may be differnt, If you use the line method I showed as long as you can stroke straight you dont have to look at the cue ball or object ball, you could watch some sexy thing walking across the room and still pocket the ball. Staying consistant is what really matters, there is no one size fits all, we all perceive things differntly..

The people I help I try to encourage them to focus on the target on delivery, if they cant do that and must focus on the cue ball, so be it.




SPINDOKTOR

All i kno is that looking at UR stance in UR avitar, I'm amazed U can even make a ball. U really have UR head at a funny angle.

Brian

 

[TheBook]

Hey its my first post on AZ, but I am an A player. And I think the only way to get to A status and above to lets say world class, is to have a consistent and highly accurate aiming technique. I mean where you can play on triple shimmed GC pockets as well as WPBA pockets. Now I have tried to explain with some fervor my aiming technique to decent players who were inconsistent. But the problem I find is when I get to the part where I can just "see" it, that's where the oh I get it stops. So the question is to other semi-professional to professional players is... Do you have an aiming technique in which part of it you can teach, but then some of it becomes intangible. Because believe me I wish I could teach it, it would make me some sweet bucks. Thanks guys.

Like you said there is no magic or secret except to hit balls and get a eye for the shot. I can't explain how I shoot either, except to look at the ball, line it up and shoot. Most times it goes in. I think the best way to describe it is using the tunnel / ghost ball method. There was a link that showed the tunnel method. It is basically showing the edges of the CB extended like railroads tracks that forms a tube showing the path of the CB to the position of the ghost ball.

If you really want to make some money just make something up. Spider for one is a good example. If you make it they will come.

 

[QueenB]

I know a few systems that I have tried. There is "find the point from object ball straight to pocket" , ghost ball theory and there is the new system, which you have to line up straight from cue ball to object ball to the rail and then turn sideways with the cue depending on how big the angle is. If it a little angle, like 15 degrees you just turn one tip. They all work, but the one that I can alsways depend on is the point on object ball straight to the pocket. Except that it is hard if you are using english. I find the point and keep looking at it until i get down on the table ready to shoot. It works all the time. It is reliale when I am nervous too.