PDA

View Full Version : A Thread For All Non-Aimers



mybreak
05-15-2006, 06:21 AM
Would all of you whiz kids that feel pros don't use aiming systems, aiming systems are for beginners, aiming systems are for practice only, or the other ridiculous statements that you and only you can come up with - will you please describe in complete detail ALL of the different ways you visualize, see, or line up the CB, OB, or your cue with each other to make a shot.

If you say, "I just know", "I sense it", or "I just see it", then explain what "you know, sense or see" in vivid detail.

You wanted it on topic, well you got it. Let's see if YOU can keep it that way and describe something that will benefit others with all of your wisdom and experience.

Rod
05-15-2006, 07:35 AM
Well DM has appears again or his identical thinking twin brother! BTW I just see the angle. ha ha ha Maybe SM will drop in and say hi. That would really boil your beans.

Rod

Cueless Joey
05-15-2006, 11:02 AM
I guess those talented individuals who have been playing for so long can visualize what happens to the two balls when they collide.

wolfdancer
05-15-2006, 11:32 AM
I'll avoid the controversy...but,I happened to check out a thread over on Azbilliards....and one L.Salazar...whom I believe to be Lance Salazar, a very talented young player,(I believe that he won the junior nationals, a few years back) wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
With aiming systems, some players use them, some don't. I think every player has used an aiming system at one point in their development - though, in my case, and some others i've talked to, those aiming systems were discarded and your feel becomes more dependable. <hr /></blockquote>
C. J. Wiley, on the other hand, has a tape out explaining his aiming system.

I believe pool to be a psychomotor activity, involving the mind, body, and emotions....I don't have the hand/eye coordination, nor the positive mental frame of mind to master the game.....Hal's aiming system though ( what I understand of it), has taken a lot of the guesswork out of playing for me, and "eased the pain"
I doubt then, I'll "outgrow" my dependency on aiming systems

mybreak
05-15-2006, 11:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> I guess those talented individuals who have been playing for so long can visualize what happens to the two balls when they collide. <hr /></blockquote>

Talented or untalented individuals can visualize what happens to the two balls "when" they collide. The question is what do they visualize "before" they MAKE the balls collide in the proper spots? I guess you're going to say that they visualize the "when" as the "before". The next question is, how do they line up or AIM for the "when"? You MUST see or line up something, I don't care what the talent level or world ranking is. The game is played by visual acuity, not braille, guesswork or esp. Why are NONE of the whiz kids chiming in with their great words of wisdom that will benefit everybody? I thought somebody mentioned that one of 'em was intelligent. DUH.

Cueless Joey
05-15-2006, 01:16 PM
Do baseball players aim their bats?
Do pitchers aim the balls?
When you say aim, you're talking parts of the ball or tip or shaft whatever?
You think it's impossible for a pro to see the shot, get down and if it looks right to him/her, he/she shoots?
Max Eberle says he looks at the contact point on the ob and hits it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

mybreak
05-15-2006, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> Do baseball players aim their bats?
Do pitchers aim the balls?
When you say aim, you're talking parts of the ball or tip or shaft whatever?
You think it's impossible for a pro to see the shot, get down and if it looks right to him/her, he/she shoots?
Max Eberle says he looks at the contact point on the ob and hits it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>

The baseball or baseball bat comparison isn't even close to what happens in aiming for pool.

When I say "aim", yes, I'm talking about segments or sections of the balls, spots or points, or the shaft and tip.

You stated, "You think it's impossible for a pro to see the shot, get down on it and if it 'looks right to him/her, he/she shoots?
You're closing in on the right track here but you aren't thinking it through far enough to the end result. WHAT IS HE/SHE DOING VISUALLY TO MAKE IT 'LOOK RIGHT'?
The 'making it look right' IS THE AIMING PART! There are a number of ways to do it, that's all.

OK. Max Eberle is using a "contact point aiming system". It's well known and a no brainer. It IS an aiming system. Now, how is he determining the contact point on the CB in addition to the OB? Most people just use an "equal and opposite" way of envisioning it, another way of aiming. If you're using english with it, then you have to adjust a little for different variables. THAT is where experience, feel, or the rest of it comes in. However, there are other ways that don't necessarily require adjustments, if you know them.

Stretch
05-15-2006, 01:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I'll avoid the controversy...but,I happened to check out a thread over on Azbilliards....and one L.Salazar...whom I believe to be Lance Salazar, a very talented young player,(I believe that he won the junior nationals, a few years back) wrote:
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
With aiming systems, some players use them, some don't. I think every player has used an aiming system at one point in their development - though, in my case, and some others i've talked to, those aiming systems were discarded and your feel becomes more dependable. <hr /></blockquote>


That nicely sums it up for me Wolf /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif St.


C. J. Wiley, on the other hand, has a tape out explaining his aiming system.

I believe pool to be a psychomotor activity, involving the mind, body, and emotions....I don't have the hand/eye coordination, nor the positive mental frame of mind to master the game.....Hal's aiming system though ( what I understand of it), has taken a lot of the guesswork out of playing for me, and "eased the pain"
I doubt then, I'll "outgrow" my dependency on aiming systems <hr /></blockquote>

Stretch
05-15-2006, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Well DM has appears again or his identical thinking twin brother! BTW I just see the angle. ha ha ha Maybe SM will drop in and say hi. That would really boil your beans.

Rod <hr /></blockquote>

...i was thinking "DownTown" myself. Dosn't matter, havn't had this much fun here for quite a while. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif St.

mybreak
05-15-2006, 03:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Stretch:</font><hr>
That nicely sums it up for me Wolf /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif St. <hr /></blockquote>

Another very fine post my Mr. Mensa himself. What the hell are you talking about or referring to that Wolfdancer posted, since he said different things that are totally opposite from each other? Do you have anything that you can actually describe as far as what you do in the shooting or aiming part or is it too complex?

Let me help you out. Let's assume that you have a STRAIGHT in shot. The CB is 4-5' from the OB and the OB is 3' from a corner pocket. What do you see? How do you line up the CB with the OB and the pocket as well as your cue?

Here's another one: The OB is about 12" straight in from the side pocket if lined up from one pocket to the other and the CB is back about 8" off the end rail with close to an 87 - 90 degree cut to the side. How do you align the CB and the OB visually along with your cue to make the shot? What do you see?

bsmutz
05-15-2006, 04:35 PM
No need to get testy. People are just trying to answer as best they can. If it ain't what you are looking for, skip it. Sometimes I use the ghost ball method. Most times, I look at the object ball and "see" the contact point then aim to send the opposite side of the cue ball to that point on the object ball. (Get the feeling that this thread is more about the argument than about useful information. The use of "whiz kids" in the original post was a tip off for me. That and the poster's apparent feeling that he is smarter than those he is referring to.)

Too old to be a whiz "kid", so probably best to disregard any information that may be gleaned from my post.

mybreak
05-15-2006, 04:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> No need to get testy. People are just trying to answer as best they can. If it ain't what you are looking for, skip it. Sometimes I use the ghost ball method. Most times, I look at the object ball and "see" the contact point then aim to send the opposite side of the cue ball to that point on the object ball. (Get the feeling that this thread is more about the argument than about useful information. The use of "whiz kids" in the original post was a tip off for me.) <hr /></blockquote>

Get a grip man. I'm trying to get these guys to think and use their brain, if that's testy then you're right. THEY are being tested on their base of understanding. Personally, I could give a [censored] how they play or what they know. Giving out bad or worthless information, which they do, is another thing though.

As far as you go, you ARE USING Aiming Systems. As you stated, you do in fact use the ghost ball method. At other times you use the "equal and opposite" contact point system.

Where's the argument? Wake up dude. At least you know what the hell you're doing, other than the fact that you don't know what it's called and actually IS an aiming system.
Fact is, your post is the FIRST one from which useful information can be gleaned.

kevinkins
05-15-2006, 05:27 PM
I think beginers all use some form of aiming system. As players advance the simple shots dont have to be "aimed" at all ie studying the angle. Then as players advance more even medium difficulty shots can be approached the same way. As players get even better they are looking to set up the next shot(s). They walk around the table and can quickly determine the aim on the OB without even stopping to "aim" as they did as beginers. They hold an image of the shot in the brain. This occurs in many activities where experianced and talented people visualize the result. Golf is an example where you are taught to visulize the shot. I think we are into sysmantics. Everyone has an aiming "system". It's different for different people. And not all of them can be described in a way useful to others. Other than things like ghost ball and 30/90 degree rules is'nt the rest experiance and feel?

- Kevin

wolfdancer
05-15-2006, 06:11 PM
The opposing views here seem to be that Mybreak claims that the good players use an aiming system, and you'ld be dumb not to know this.
While the opposing concensus is that they now play be feel.

So maybe the brain, acting like a compiler in a computer, is translating some base aiming system....see the contact point/angle/double the distance/ghost ball, etc into a "higher language" an intuitive aiming system
Which then makes both sides right, and both sides wrong....end of story.....it's a wrap!!!
AND......how can one describe a shot that just feels right...or a shot where you feel you need a little helping english ......or one where you need to go 3 rails after contact, and remove one ball from a cluster?

dr_dave
05-15-2006, 06:40 PM
FYI, there are many links to resources and threads describing various aiming systems and related material under "aiming" in the thread summary area of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html). Check them out.

Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> Would all of you whiz kids that feel pros don't use aiming systems, aiming systems are for beginners, aiming systems are for practice only, or the other ridiculous statements that you and only you can come up with - will you please describe in complete detail ALL of the different ways you visualize, see, or line up the CB, OB, or your cue with each other to make a shot.

If you say, "I just know", "I sense it", or "I just see it", then explain what "you know, sense or see" in vivid detail.

You wanted it on topic, well you got it. Let's see if YOU can keep it that way and describe something that will benefit others with all of your wisdom and experience. <hr /></blockquote>

Cueless Joey
05-15-2006, 08:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> I guess those talented individuals who have been playing for so long can visualize what happens to the two balls when they collide. <hr /></blockquote>

Talented or untalented individuals can visualize what happens to the two balls "when" they collide. The question is what do they visualize "before" they MAKE the balls collide in the proper spots? I guess you're going to say that they visualize the "when" as the "before". The next question is, how do they line up or AIM for the "when"? You MUST see or line up something, I don't care what the talent level or world ranking is. The game is played by visual acuity, not braille, guesswork or esp. Why are NONE of the whiz kids chiming in with their great words of wisdom that will benefit everybody? I thought somebody mentioned that one of 'em was intelligent. DUH. <hr /></blockquote>
Paralysis by over analysis. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Uh, imaginary tangent line since it doesn't really physically exist?
Seriously, the pros know exactly the path of the cb due to the tangent line and after playing for thousands and thousands of hours, I think it has become automatic how they line up after imagining the two balls colliding.
Jose Parica told me during dinner one time, he said his brain is just like a computer when playing pool. He just knows how to hit the balls.

SpiderMan
05-15-2006, 10:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> The opposing views here seem to be that Mybreak claims that the good players use an aiming system, and you'ld be dumb not to know this.
While the opposing concensus is that they now play be feel.

So maybe the brain, acting like a compiler in a computer, is translating some base aiming system....see the contact point/angle/double the distance/ghost ball, etc into a "higher language" an intuitive aiming system
Which then makes both sides right, and both sides wrong....end of story.....it's a wrap!!!
AND......how can one describe a shot that just feels right...or a shot where you feel you need a little helping english ......or one where you need to go 3 rails after contact, and remove one ball from a cluster? <hr /></blockquote>

I think you're on the right track, but there are many more opinions than the two extremes some try to pigeonhole the arguments into. I'm personally at neither extreme.

As I've said many times, in many threads, I believe most players have methods (call them "systems" if you must) for shot visualization. Those who use discretized "systems" must, by definition, compensate one way or another for some shots because we play an analog game requiring a continuum of outcomes. But that's OK, they don't even have to realize what's happening - it's just the brain's intuitive system you described.

Give a system to a beginner and he'll use it for all shots. As an intermediate, he'll compensate, adjust, and fine-tune. If he continues to advance, he'll "bypass" the system in many familiar situations. In more difficult situations, he may fall back to his rote method, or maybe even cross-check several methods, to achieve basic alignment. Some players claim never to get out of the intuitive zone and into the systematic. Is it true? We may never know.

It's all about visualization - what's the best way for a given individual to "see" the result and execute based on what he "sees". I'm afraid it will never be a "wrap", because the real truth is that many techniques will work just fine, there's no panacea and no need for one. The brain's "intuitive system", as you described, is fully capable (once conditioned) of correcting the shortcomings of any "system" that is even in the ballpark.

This intuition is powerful - think of the concentration required for a decent player to "just miss" a shot off the edge of a pocket. That sneaky brain wants to put the ball in even when we try to miss - no wonder it goes in when we point it in the general direction and give it free rein.

If anything, this ability of the brain to compensate is behind much of the dispute. It allows everyone to feel that their pet "system", the one that THEY prefer for visualization, is perfect, because "the balls go in". And they'll deny that the brain is compensating - their "perfect system" doesn't require it, LMAO. Give your own brain more credit, folks.

SpiderMan

Qtec
05-15-2006, 10:36 PM
Is the ghost ball method an aiming system?

Q

wolfdancer
05-15-2006, 11:08 PM
I think you have summed it up nicely. and Dr. Dave's link does a good job as well.

9_Ball_Junky
05-16-2006, 05:13 AM
i agree that this thread is probably for the sake of arguing just to argue, or for someone to make themselves feel tall while attempting to make others feel small, although i dont know exactly why the thread was stated in this manner.


contrary to popular belief, i dont think a lot of people use "aiming systems." after years and years of play, you may play against several hundred people, at the least, and a lot of the time those opponents, especailly in your younger days, will drop a bug in your ear about how to make certain shots, and over time you acquire bits and pieces of countless aiming systems, resulting in one big clusterf*ck of random bits and pieces, all allowing for different methods to be used for literally every shot.

so no, i dont believe a lot of people use a "system."

J

mybreak
05-16-2006, 05:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Is the ghost ball method an aiming system?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah...is that what you use?

mybreak
05-16-2006, 05:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> Everyone has an aiming "system". It's different for different people. And not all of them can be described in a way useful to others. Other than things like ghost ball and 30/90 degree rules is'nt the rest experiance and feel?
Kevin <hr /></blockquote>

That's not the way it is, Kevin. Almost ALL of them can be described in a way that is beneficial to others. Some systems or methods are much better and more consistent for knocking in balls from anywhere than the rest. It's the NON-AIMERS who use a "hunt and peck" method that are clueless about the myriad of ways to line up a shot and are trying to play by divine intervention that can't describe what they do effectively. Have you seen ONE OF THEM even attempt to verbalize how they line up or aim a shot yet? I've laid out a couple of scenarios for them to explain and they run and hide. They're CLUELESS! That's why they espouse the feel crap that they do. Because they have no knowledge on the subject whatsoever, they hide their stupidity behind ethereal ramblings which attempt to make them look smart or accomplished in the game. It's typical pool forum know-it-all loser garbage.

In your case, if you think that there is only ghost ball and a 30/90 degree rule to aiming, you have a very exciting time ahead of you if you open your mind and learn from some of the guys on here that really do know what they're talking about. They'll always be more than willing to help you if you just ask for it.

cushioncrawler
05-16-2006, 05:52 AM
Hi mybreak -- firstly, my pedigree -- i didnt play english billiardz between 1967 and 1985, but, in that period, i picked up a cue to win 2 eight-ball tournaments -- thats 2 out of 2 -- even Efren haznt got that sort of record -- the first woz at a dam construction camp -- the second woz at my golf club -- each running over several weeks (or months even) -- this iz completely irrelevent.

What i wanted to say iz this -- the best post i have seen on Billiards Digest woz from a pro who said something like........
......Put the object ball anywhere on the table, and put the qball anywhere on the table, and i know what the needed contact and aim iz. Period.

This woz in about March -- i couldnt find the actual posting.

mybreak
05-16-2006, 05:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
I think you're on the right track, but there are many more opinions than the two extremes some try to pigeonhole the arguments into. I'm personally at neither extreme.

As I've said many times, in many threads, I believe most players have methods (call them "systems" if you must) for shot visualization. Those who use discretized "systems" must, by definition, compensate one way or another for some shots because we play an analog game requiring a continuum of outcomes. But that's OK, they don't even have to realize what's happening - it's just the brain's intuitive system you described.

Give a system to a beginner and he'll use it for all shots. As an intermediate, he'll compensate, adjust, and fine-tune. If he continues to advance, he'll "bypass" the system in many familiar situations. In more difficult situations, he may fall back to his rote method, or maybe even cross-check several methods, to achieve basic alignment. Some players claim never to get out of the intuitive zone and into the systematic. Is it true? We may never know.

It's all about visualization - what's the best way for a given individual to "see" the result and execute based on what he "sees". I'm afraid it will never be a "wrap", because the real truth is that many techniques will work just fine, there's no panacea and no need for one. The brain's "intuitive system", as you described, is fully capable (once conditioned) of correcting the shortcomings of any "system" that is even in the ballpark.

This intuition is powerful - think of the concentration required for a decent player to "just miss" a shot off the edge of a pocket. That sneaky brain wants to put the ball in even when we try to miss - no wonder it goes in when we point it in the general direction and give it free rein.

If anything, this ability of the brain to compensate is behind much of the dispute. It allows everyone to feel that their pet "system", the one that THEY prefer for visualization, is perfect, because "the balls go in". And they'll deny that the brain is compensating - their "perfect system" doesn't require it, LMAO. Give your own brain more credit, folks.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Hey Spiderman, nice little waltz around the dance floor again. Man, all of that philosophizing and intellectualizing just about made me want to take up Zen Buddhism this morning. It still is a bunch of garbage that has NOTHING to do with transferring knowledge to become a better shotmaker. You and the rest or your crowd can moon walk, crawfish, jibber-jabber, pontificate, sing and dance constantly, but there's nothing hard core.

How about YOU being the first one that responds to my two shot scenario and explain, in your infinite wisdom, what you do to line up and aim to make these shots. Once we get past these initial ones, we'll move on to those that are in-between, which is usually where all of the supposed "feel and intuitive knowledge" come into play with the hunt and peckers. Here it is once again: (please respond)

Let's assume that you have a STRAIGHT in shot. The CB is 4-5' from the OB and the OB is 3' from a corner pocket. What do you see? How do you line up the CB with the OB and the pocket as well as your cue?

Here's another one: The OB is about 12" straight in from the side pocket if lined up from one pocket to the other and the CB is back about 8" off the end rail with close to an 87 - 90 degree cut to the side. How do you align the CB and the OB visually along with your cue to make the shot? What do you see?

Is this really that hard to explain?

mybreak
05-16-2006, 06:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 9_Ball_Junky:</font><hr> i agree that this thread is probably for the sake of arguing just to argue, or for someone to make themselves feel tall while attempting to make others feel small, although i dont know exactly why the thread was stated in this manner.


contrary to popular belief, i dont think a lot of people use "aiming systems." after years and years of play, you may play against several hundred people, at the least, and a lot of the time those opponents, especailly in your younger days, will drop a bug in your ear about how to make certain shots, and over time you acquire bits and pieces of countless aiming systems, resulting in one big clusterf*ck of random bits and pieces, all allowing for different methods to be used for literally every shot.

so no, i dont believe a lot of people use a "system."

J <hr /></blockquote>

NOPE...it's not about arguing and making someone feel small or anything else. Here is my shot scenario for you just like the rest - stay on topic and explain what you do.


Let's assume that you have a STRAIGHT in shot. The CB is 4-5' from the OB and the OB is 3' from a corner pocket. What do you see? How do you line up the CB with the OB and the pocket as well as your cue?

Here's another one: The OB is about 12" straight in from the side pocket if lined up from one pocket to the other and the CB is back about 8" off the end rail with close to an 87 - 90 degree cut to the side. How do you align the CB and the OB visually along with your cue to make the shot? What do you see?

There is NO argument in this. It's just your explanation of how you do it. Soooooooo, do it to it, man.

mybreak
05-16-2006, 06:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>
......Put the object ball anywhere on the table, and put the qball anywhere on the table, and i know what the needed contact and aim iz. Period.
<hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, but the good part comes in describing HOW the contact and aiming part actually takes place when you're down on the ball so that others who are lesser players can learn how to do it just like the best. There are a number of ways to do it and some work better than others and it happens in a split second without even thinking once their internalized. There is NO paralysis by analysis when you know exactly what you want to do and you know how to do it.

Rich R.
05-16-2006, 06:36 AM
I'm sure every pool player uses some type of a "system" to aim. I'm equally sure that 99% of them, including myself, can't explain exactly how they aim. More than likely, the more experienced the player, the more different types of aiming systems they will use on different shots.

When I learned to play pool, you sat and watched the better players. Then you went to a table and tried to do what they did. No one said there was a system to be learned and, usually, no one helped you learn how to aim. You learned through trial and error.

I agree, this was not the best way to learn, but, at that time, no one in my area had ever heard of a "pool instructor", I never saw any instruction books, although I'm sure there were some around, and there were certainly no videos at that time. We learned, but I don't think many of us would call anything a "system".

Barbara
05-16-2006, 07:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Well DM has appears again or his identical thinking twin brother! BTW I just see the angle. ha ha ha Maybe SM will drop in and say hi. That would really boil your beans.

Rod <hr /></blockquote>

I was thinking the same thing. About DM, that is.

Barbara

Fran Crimi
05-16-2006, 07:22 AM
What is your problem? Why are you so angry about this? I wouldn't dare answer the question because it's more than obvious that you're looking to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view.

Nope. No way. No answer here. I'm no sucker. I wish the others wouldn't bite, either.

Fran

mybreak
05-16-2006, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> What is your problem? Why are you so angry about this? I wouldn't dare answer the question because it's more than obvious that you're looking to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view.

Nope. No way. No answer here. I'm no sucker. I wish the others wouldn't bite, either.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Since you don't know me, and I don't know you, maybe you shouldn't prejudge anything based on the written word in here. There's no problem nor anger, you see what you want to see.

If you explained how you aimed the shots, you wouldn't believe how sweet I could be. This should be VERY easy for you to do. I thought you were a player and teacher.

Fran Crimi
05-16-2006, 08:12 AM
I don't know who you think you're kidding.

Your past posts of calling people morons speaks volumes.

dr_dave
05-16-2006, 08:17 AM
It seems like there has been more hostility than normal on the CCB lately.

Maybe in the year 2025, everybody would be respectful, even if there were disagreement or misunderstanding.

Hoping for a kinder world. Peace,
Dave
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I don't know who you think you're kidding.

Your past posts of calling people morons speaks volumes.

<hr /></blockquote>

mybreak
05-16-2006, 08:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I don't know who you think you're kidding.

Your past posts of calling people morons speaks volumes.
<hr /></blockquote>


On the subject of aiming, they are. So what? Do what you want to do but you're still erroneously prejudging. Have a nice life.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-16-2006, 09:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> will you please describe in complete detail ALL of the different ways you visualize, see, or line up the CB, OB, or your cue with each other to make a shot.

If you say, "I just know", "I sense it", or "I just see it", then explain what "you know, sense or see" in vivid detail.

<hr /></blockquote>


Would you add your answer to this thread?

Some beginners may benifit from your answer. Or, are you the biginner?

Can you contribute? or do you just like "stirring the pot"?

wolfdancer
05-16-2006, 09:07 AM
Since no one here seems to be able to write down their thought porcess, while aiming (we do all aim, by the way)....maybe you could write down yours.
Here's why I believe aiming for the really talented players, might become an automatic process.
A straight shot is just that...center to center...
A half ball shot, with it's 30 degree carom angle, is also easy to visualize (executing it and the straight shot though, may take a little talent)
What's left are cuts ranging over 30 degrees, and those under.
Without any measurement, or aiming system....the contact points have been reduced to 1/8 of each ball's circumference.
The almost half ball hit, and the almost straight in shot should also be an easy adjustment for the experienced player, and since the quarter ball hit produces a 45 degree cut angle.....all that is left are those grey areas between the quarter "markings"
It's like making an 18 ft, fall away jumper in basketball....after many hours of practice, you just "feel" the shot......or maybe it's like tieing your shoes....some complicated hand movements involved, but the procedure is on auto-pilot.
So, back to you....how does one describe a straight in shot, except for center to center.....or your almost 90, except for edge to edge?
Or is this a Zen Koan?
From the "Teaching of Buddha" (theory of mind-only and the real state of things)...
The important thing in following the path to enlightment is to avoid being caught and entangled in any extreme, that is, always to follow the middle way.
enlightenment exists solely because of delusionment and ignorance; if they disappear, so will enlightment"
Or, as Buddha would say....that answer that you seek may not exist once it is revealed......

mybreak
05-16-2006, 09:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> will you please describe in complete detail ALL of the different ways you visualize, see, or line up the CB, OB, or your cue with each other to make a shot.

If you say, "I just know", "I sense it", or "I just see it", then explain what "you know, sense or see" in vivid detail.

<hr /></blockquote>


Would you add your answer to this thread?

Some beginners may benifit from your answer. Or, are you the biginner?

Can you contribute? or do you just like "stirring the pot"? <hr /></blockquote>

This thread is for those claiming to be "NON-AIMERS". I think it would be interesting for everyone, including myself, to find out how a non-aimer lines up a shot without aiming. If I was a non-aimer, I WOULD contribute to the thread. But as an aimer, and one that knows just about every aiming technique in existence and how to use them, it's not gonna happen at this time, at least until all of the non-aimers who were invited to discuss it finally describe what they do.

Would YOU like to contribute on how you aim those shots? Are you an aimer or a non-aimer?

mybreak
05-16-2006, 10:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
A straight shot is just that...center to center...
A half ball shot, with it's 30 degree carom angle, is also easy to visualize (executing it and the straight shot though, may take a little talent)
What's left are cuts ranging over 30 degrees, and those under.
Without any measurement, or aiming system....the contact points have been reduced to 1/8 of each ball's circumference.
The almost half ball hit, and the almost straight in shot should also be an easy adjustment for the experienced player, and since the quarter ball hit produces a 45 degree cut angle.....all that is left are those grey areas between the quarter "markings"
So, back to you....how does one describe a straight in shot, except for center to center.....or your almost 90, except for edge to edge?
Or is this a Zen Koan?
From the "Teaching of Buddha" (theory of mind-only and the real state of things)...
The important thing in following the path to enlightment is to avoid being caught and entangled in any extreme, that is, always to follow the middle way.
enlightenment exists solely because of delusionment and ignorance; if they disappear, so will enlightment"
Or, as Buddha would say....that answer that you seek may not exist once it is revealed......
<hr /></blockquote>

Clap, clap, clap, applause and cheers. I commend you for stepping up to the plate. However, you and I are coming from the same train of thought. EVERYBODY AIMS!! Before I chime in, which may be never based on responses, I want to hear from those that have absolutely stated that they don't aim or it's all done by something else other than using your eyes to line up the shot in different ways. I'd like to hear what they see and how this method can be transferable to someone else.

DickLeonard
05-16-2006, 10:29 AM
Mybreak I never missed in my youth it was only when I started to aim that I started to miss. Very strange. The mind/body is an amazing machine, it is only when we start overloading it with orders that it short circuits.####

mybreak
05-16-2006, 10:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Mybreak I never missed in my youth it was only when I started to aim that I started to miss. Very strange. The mind/body is an amazing machine, it is only when we start overloading it with orders that it short circuits.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, we did EVERYTHING great in our youth. Or at least that's the way our memory serves us. Oh Lord, where is that fountain of youth located so that I can recapture it.
I will say, although it had nothing to do with aiming or the lack therof, but my highest run in straight pool was when I was in my late teens. Then I got more into 9 ball and have never been able to duplicate or exceed it.

wolfdancer
05-16-2006, 10:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now, how is he determining the contact point on the CB in addition to the OB? <hr /></blockquote>
This is probably going to be the hardest part for you to understand, as you seek to unbind the chains that tie you to
an aiming system, and allow your own visualization and psychomotor skills to develope.
If you use your cue to aim the O.B. at the pocket.....you will not only have found the O.B. contact point....but the point opposite on the O.B. (that is the point nearest the pocket) is also the C.B. contact point.......theoritically.
On a cut shot to the corner pocket...If the cue ball lines up on an angle that is pointed more towards the end rail....the O.B. may be thrown off line towards the end rail....if the cueball approach angle is pointing more towards the side rail, then the object ball may hit the side rail. It's my contention that the more force applied, the wider the miss. It's been called "cling"..I think it is due to "proportional force'...my own words.
Mike Sigal used this same "wider miss" phenomenom..to get an edge on players in the 80's. He aimed his force follow shots wide of the pocket.....long before some others caught on.
It goes back to adding feel to your mathmetical aiming system.....but you'll never know until you try it.
There are savants that can work out complex math problems in their head....but can't explain just how......and I doubt if Efran could explain it to you how he aims a shot.
Knowing all these aiming systems may seem to be beneficial to you.....but if they work, 100%....why wouldn't one suffice?
If you want to go beyond being a "C" player....and think about this....what if you are in a tournament, and the batteries go out from your circular slide rule, and you depended on that to work out your aiming angle....what would you do?

mybreak
05-16-2006, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Now, how is he determining the contact point on the CB in addition to the OB? <hr /></blockquote>
This is probably going to be the hardest part for you to understand, as you seek to unbind the chains that tie you to
an aiming system, and allow your own visualization and psychomotor skills to develope.
If you use your cue to aim the O.B. at the pocket.....you will not only have found the O.B. contact point....but the point opposite on the O.B. (that is the point nearest the pocket) is also the C.B. contact point.......theoritically.
On a cut shot to the corner pocket...If the cue ball lines up on an angle that is pointed more towards the end rail....the O.B. may be thrown off line towards the end rail....if the cueball approach angle is pointing more towards the side rail, then the object ball may hit the side rail. It's my contention that the more force applied, the wider the miss. It's been called "cling"..I think it is due to "proportional force'...my own words.
Mike Sigal used this same "wider miss" phenomenom..to get an edge on players in the 80's. He aimed his force follow shots wide of the pocket.....long before some others caught on.
It goes back to adding feel to your mathmetical aiming system.....but you'll never know until you try it.
There are savants that can work out complex math problems in their head....but can't explain just how......and I doubt if Efran could explain it to you how he aims a shot.
Knowing all these aiming systems may seem to be beneficial to you.....but if they work, 100%....why wouldn't one suffice?
If you want to go beyond being a "C" player....and think about this....what if you are in a tournament, and the batteries go out from your circular slide rule, and you depended on that to work out your aiming angle....what would you do? <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know who the C player is and it doesn't matter, but personally I don't use any slide rules or get involved in angle calculations so nothing falls out from under me.
It's all quite simple. You have to know and use more than one method of aiming because left or right english comes into play along with backhand and one method only doesn't move the CB in directions that you need to go yet make the shot consistently.

bsmutz
05-16-2006, 11:06 AM
“Would all of you whiz kids”, “the other ridiculous statements that you and only you can come up with”, “Why are NONE of the whiz kids chiming in with their great words of wisdom that will benefit everybody? I thought somebody mentioned that one of 'em was intelligent. DUH.”, “Another very fine post my Mr. Mensa himself.”, “Giving out bad or worthless information, which they do,”, “they run and hide. They're CLUELESS! That's why they espouse the feel crap that they do. Because they have no knowledge on the subject whatsoever, they hide their stupidity behind ethereal ramblings which attempt to make them look smart or accomplished in the game. It's typical pool forum know-it-all loser garbage.”, “It still is a bunch of garbage that has NOTHING to do with transferring knowledge to become a better shotmaker. You and the rest or your crowd can moon walk, crawfish, jibber-jabber, pontificate, sing and dance constantly, but there's nothing hard core.”, “in your infinite wisdom,”, “This should be VERY easy for you to do. I thought you were a player and teacher.”
Read these statements taken directly from your posts to this thread and tell me that you are not prejudging anyone and that you are sincerely interested in what someone who might have a different opinion than you has to say on the subject. To me it just sounds like you are poised to attack any and all comers. Who gives a rap if someone wants to say that they "feel" the shot? How can you expect someone to explain how they "feel" something? Can you explain how you smell something? Give it a rest. Find something else to post about. Get a hobby, go shoot some balls, anything; just find something to do that isn't about belittling others and expounding on your superior knowledge about all things aiming...

wolfdancer
05-16-2006, 11:10 AM
Thanks for replying in a non-confrontational manner.....
I was actually trying to pull your chain a bit with the "C" player and circular slide rule, bit.
I really don't know if you can define the aiming/thought process. I've watched many a recreational player, who can't play himself, try to tell his girlfriend, who is playing for the first time,how to aim.....don't know if my explanation would be any better

SPetty
05-16-2006, 11:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>
......Put the object ball anywhere on the table, and put the qball anywhere on the table, and i know what the needed contact and aim iz. Period.
<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, but the good part comes in describing HOW the contact and aiming part actually takes place when you're down on the ball so that others who are lesser players can learn how to do it just like the best. There are a number of ways to do it and some work better than others and it happens in a split second without even thinking once their internalized. There is NO paralysis by analysis when you know exactly what you want to do and you know how to do it. <hr /></blockquote>That's all they're saying - they just don't express it the same way you do. If they say they don't aim, what they mean is they employ their system in a split second without even thinking because they've internalized it.

As for explaining it to others - as you've pointed out, they can't. But just because they can't explain it doesn't mean they can't execute it.

I, too, am waiting to find out what your apparent ranting is all about. I can't seem to grasp the point that you're trying to make, if there is one.

Maybe you should start "A Thread For All Aimers" if you want a description of how to aim. It seems silly to ask people who claim they don't aim to describe how they aim... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

<font color="gray">(Sorry, Fran!)</font color>

bsmutz
05-16-2006, 11:28 AM
Here, I'll give you an explanation for how to shoot using "feel" and you can feel free to blast away. I look at the relationship between the cue ball and the object ball I want to make while standing away from the table. Using my brain, I step to the table along the line I think will give me a pretty good chance of making the ball using the hours of experience as a data base. I stroke my cue while observing the relationship between cue, cue ball, object ball, and pocket. When everything "feels" right, (brain says, "Bill, this feels pretty good, I think you've got it right.") then I deliver the cue stick to the cue ball. There is no particular spot on the object ball that stands out as THE place to hit it. Last night on a few shots in a row, I just leaned over and shot the shot without thinking about it. I didn't give myself time to aim at anything, make any adjustments, or really even see where the cue stick was going to make contact with the cue ball. I just shot the shot. I made all of them. After just bending over on the perceived shot line, I might as well have had my eyes closed or been looking at a point on the wall over my right shoulder. Hope this helps. If it doesn't, let me know and I will try to clarify (or declarify, whichever you prefer).

wolfdancer
05-16-2006, 11:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It seems silly to ask people who claim they don't aim to describe how they aim... <hr /></blockquote>
The thread is a bit mislabeled, if that is the question.

It's a conundrum, or maybe it is a Zen koan.
But I now think Mybreak does have a point for discussion.
Sort of like "how do you play by just feel, without aiming?"
Unfortunately, I think it beyond explanation.
And, maybe the best way to get a topic going....is to be a little ....aggressive in your query?

wolfdancer
05-16-2006, 11:45 AM
Bill, the spot that I'll need, just keeps getting bigger, with each of your posts...and I'll insist that that spot on the wall that you use, be covered up.

supergreenman
05-16-2006, 12:00 PM
well in detail this is how I aim without using an aiming system. when it's my turn I wave my voodoo doll at the table line up and close my eyes and the voodoo doll does the rest. If I start missing too much, I get a new voodoo doll.

I believe my voodoo doll uses an aiming sytem though. it's called perfect geometry. equal opposites + or - a certian voodoo coefficient adjustment for spin. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Just playin with you dude cuz your so "testy"

dr_dave
05-16-2006, 01:38 PM
My aiming method is described here (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=198709&amp;Foru m=ccb&amp;Words=NV%203.1&amp;Match=Entire%20Phrase&amp;Searchp age=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=2weeks&amp;Main=198526&amp;Search=true# Post198709).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> Would all of you whiz kids that feel pros don't use aiming systems, aiming systems are for beginners, aiming systems are for practice only, or the other ridiculous statements that you and only you can come up with - will you please describe in complete detail ALL of the different ways you visualize, see, or line up the CB, OB, or your cue with each other to make a shot.

If you say, "I just know", "I sense it", or "I just see it", then explain what "you know, sense or see" in vivid detail.

You wanted it on topic, well you got it. Let's see if YOU can keep it that way and describe something that will benefit others with all of your wisdom and experience. <hr /></blockquote>

kevinkins
05-16-2006, 02:35 PM
Before continuing the thread everyone read the "How do Pros Aim" article in Dr Dave's post above - that may put this whole thing to rest.

Kevin

mybreak
05-16-2006, 02:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> To me it just sounds like you are poised to attack any and all comers. Who gives a rap if someone wants to say that they "feel" the shot? How can you expect someone to explain how they "feel" something? Can you explain how you smell something? Give it a rest. Find something else to post about. Get a hobby, go shoot some balls, anything; just find something to do that isn't about belittling others and expounding on your superior knowledge about all things aiming... <hr /></blockquote>

For somebody that has the temerity to tell me what you think I'm doing, you're doing a good job of it yourself.
Take your OWN advice...get a hobby, go shoot some balls, get a job, read some books on aiming. Then come back and talk with some intelligence instead of having nothing to say. Can YOU talk on topic?

You FEEL the stroke. You FEEL the force. You FEEL your cue. You FEEL the speed.
You DON'T FEEL AIMING. FEEL has to do with the sense of touch. You SEE it with your eyes. It has to do with the sense of SIGHT. You don't FEEL something that you SEE unless you're totally blind. WHAT DO YOU SEE WHEN AIMING?

kevinkins
05-16-2006, 03:03 PM
Did you read that article? Tell us how it does not answer your questions. Folks get over the cue ball and the line feels right as they adjust their (dare I say) aim. No you cant feel something you see - but the entire (aim and stance) package can "feel" real good before the shot. Feel good = confidence in making the shot (and the leave) based
on experiance and lots of practice.

- Kevin

mybreak
05-16-2006, 03:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>
......Put the object ball anywhere on the table, and put the qball anywhere on the table, and i know what the needed contact and aim iz. Period.
<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, but the good part comes in describing HOW the contact and aiming part actually takes place when you're down on the ball so that others who are lesser players can learn how to do it just like the best. There are a number of ways to do it and some work better than others and it happens in a split second without even thinking once their internalized. There is NO paralysis by analysis when you know exactly what you want to do and you know how to do it. <hr /></blockquote>That's all they're saying - they just don't express it the same way you do. If they say they don't aim, what they mean is they employ their system in a split second without even thinking because they've internalized it.

As for explaining it to others - as you've pointed out, they can't. But just because they can't explain it doesn't mean they can't execute it.

Maybe you should start "A Thread For All Aimers" if you want a description of how to aim. It seems silly to ask people who claim they don't aim to describe how they aim... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't need to start a thread for all aimers on how to aim. The most comprehensive thread ever written on all forums (over 14 pages) has it all right here. And there were some good posts explained in great detail.

I too have everything internalized and it happens in a millisecond or two and don't really think about it. Maybe I could say that I fall into the "non-aimer" category also.
But the fact is, I know what the methods are that got me there, how to execute them, and how to explain them to someone else rather than say, "I don't aim". BULLSNOT!
They and everyone else "SEES" the shot. Maybe the next step is "I don't pee or crap anymore" because I've reached a certain status in life that I'm now relieved of that nuisance routine, huh?

If you've shot a rifle a million times and you're now on the Olympic team in competition for your country, do you use the sights to aim at your target to maximize the chance of hitting it, or do you shoot from the hip and just feel it like the old Rifleman western on TV. What would you do?

mybreak
05-16-2006, 03:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> Did you read that article? Tell us how it does not answer your questions. Folks get over the cue ball and the line feels right as they adjust their (dare I say) aim. No you cant feel something you see - but the entire (aim and stance) package can "feel" real good before the shot. Feel good = confidence in making the shot (and the leave) based
on experiance and lots of practice.

- Kevin <hr /></blockquote>

I think you should have continued to read the article further and gotten into the "How The Pros AIM" from Pool &amp; Billiards magazine. Most ALL of them use something and mention what the aiming system is. A couple of them stated that they don't use an aiming system and later went back after thinking about it and clarified what it really was. Some of them either didn't want to talk about it or they really didn't know, but there weren't many and a few that did stated that they would be open to learning if it helped. Why aren't you?

bsmutz
05-16-2006, 03:34 PM
"For somebody that has the temerity to tell me what you think I'm doing, you're doing a good job of it yourself." Not sure this sentence makes any sense. If it does, I'm too lazy to try to figure it out right now. As for the rest of your diatribe, I did post twice about your topic. This post was about my perception of your verbal assault on anyone brave or stupid enough to try to answer your question before they even posted. If I am looking at the sun or a bright lamp, I can see it and feel it. There are many instances of someone feeling or sensing something that they can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. I've had this happen many times in my life as I'm sure many others have, too. I woke up in the middle of the night one time while sleeping on a sofa bed at my daughter's place. I had this feeling that if I moved, something bad was going to happen. After lying there a couple of seconds trying to get my bearings, figuring out where I was and what might be about to happen, I moved. The foot of the bed immediately collapsed on the floor. That's just one example of many I could cite of knowing something without using my senses in the normal manner.
As for what I see when aiming, I see the same thing you do. The target, the line of sight, and the instrument being aimed, as well as a myriad of other stuff that I'm probably not too concerned about. I thought this was about the non-aimers. Why are you asking the question what do you see when aiming when what you seem to want to know is how you can feel the shot without aiming? How can someone totally blind feel something that they see? Now who is being unintelligent?
Let's see if we can enlighten you some. Do you aim your fork at your mouth by looking in the mirror before you take a bite of food or do you "feel" (without seeing) that your hand and fork are on the right trajectory to get that savory bit into your mouth without stabbing yourself in the nose? Let's say that someone in the history of the world could pull a handgun out of a holster and without aiming, be able to hit a target some distance away. I know, its a big stretch of the imagination, but perhaps there was someone like this at one time. Now let's say that they were standing in the same spot (and that they had spent some time practicing this), but were now blindfolded. Do you think it would be possible, just by "feel" alone, for them to duplicate this feat without seeing the target? How about a knife thrower? I think these might be "hand-eye" coordination examples that someone with a less than feeble mind might be able to comprehend. Why don't you cogitate on that for awhile and get back to us?

kevinkins
05-16-2006, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> Did you read that article? Tell us how it does not answer your questions. Folks get over the cue ball and the line feels right as they adjust their (dare I say) aim. No you cant feel something you see - but the entire (aim and stance) package can "feel" real good before the shot. Feel good = confidence in making the shot (and the leave) based
on experiance and lots of practice.

- Kevin <hr /></blockquote>

I think you should have continued to read the article further and gotten into the "How The Pros AIM" from Pool &amp; Billiards magazine. Most ALL of them use something and mention what the aiming system is. A couple of them stated that they don't use an aiming system and later went back after thinking about it and clarified what it really was. Some of them either didn't want to talk about it or they really didn't know, but there weren't many and a few that did stated that they would be open to learning if it helped. Why aren't you? <hr /></blockquote>

There is hardly anything new to learn except on the indivudual level. The physics are known. Exection takes practice. Like I said in by first post - begining "systems" develop into experianced reflexs.

Please practice. Its more important where you leave the cue ball as you improve. Practice = confidence = "feel" = you will forget the need for an "aiming system" but of you will need to aim or the cue ball or it may go off the table and into the hot chick's nose.

- Kevin

mybreak
05-16-2006, 04:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> I stroke my cue while observing the relationship between cue, cue ball, object ball, and pocket. When everything "feels" right, (brain says, "Bill, this feels pretty good, I think you've got it right.") <hr /></blockquote>

Now we're making some progress, Billy Boy. In your entire post these TWO sentences are the only ones that I'm interested in.

In YOUR mind YOU think that this is all coming about because of the "feel" part. Nay, laddie.

It's coming about because of the "RELATIONSHIP OF THE CUE, CUE BALL, OBJECT BALL, and POCKET"...although a lot less of the pocket than you might think for right now.
THIS is the essence of aiming and what EVERYBODY SEES, even the NON-AIMERS. It happens quickly the more experienced you get and the better you are, however, it HAS to happen and ALWAYS happens.

Now, let's talk about this relationship. What do you see?
Is it the center of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it a portion of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it some point of the CB to what you think is the contact point of the OB? Is it the center of the CB or another part of the CB to the edge of the OB? Is it an edge of the CB to a portion of the OB? Where does the pointing of your cue to a part of the OB come into play?

Do you see where I'm going with this? There are a number of ways to SEE a shot and AIM. There is no right way or wrong way. It's just the right way that works best and most consistently for YOU. Some ways do work better than others.

One last thing. What if you didn't have to use the "feel" or "intuition" to tell you that you were right on track with your aim? What if you "KNEW" for a fact that it was right before you pulled the trigger? Would you want to learn or know about it?

How DO YOU SEE the relationship between the CB, OB, and cue most of the time?

mybreak
05-16-2006, 04:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> Did you read that article? Tell us how it does not answer your questions. Folks get over the cue ball and the line feels right as they adjust their (dare I say) aim. No you cant feel something you see - but the entire (aim and stance) package can "feel" real good before the shot. Feel good = confidence in making the shot (and the leave) based
on experiance and lots of practice.

- Kevin <hr /></blockquote>

I think you should have continued to read the article further and gotten into the "How The Pros AIM" from Pool &amp; Billiards magazine. Most ALL of them use something and mention what the aiming system is. A couple of them stated that they don't use an aiming system and later went back after thinking about it and clarified what it really was. Some of them either didn't want to talk about it or they really didn't know, but there weren't many and a few that did stated that they would be open to learning if it helped. Why aren't you? <hr /></blockquote>

There is hardly anything new to learn except on the indivudual level. The physics are known. Exection takes practice. Like I said in by first post - begining "systems" develop into experianced reflexs.

Please practice. Its more important where you leave the cue ball as you improve. Practice = confidence = "feel" = you will forget the need for an "aiming system" but of you will need to aim or the cue ball or it may go off the table and into the hot chick's nose.

- Kevin <hr /></blockquote>

What speed do you play at Kevin? How long have you been playing? Have you done a lot of gambling for some big money or played in tournaments?

mybreak
05-16-2006, 04:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> "For somebody that has the temerity to tell me what you think I'm doing, you're doing a good job of it yourself." Not sure this sentence makes any sense. If it does, I'm too lazy to try to figure it out right now. As for the rest of your diatribe, I did post twice about your topic. This post was about my perception of your verbal assault on anyone brave or stupid enough to try to answer your question before they even posted. If I am looking at the sun or a bright lamp, I can see it and feel it. There are many instances of someone feeling or sensing something that they can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell. I've had this happen many times in my life as I'm sure many others have, too. I woke up in the middle of the night one time while sleeping on a sofa bed at my daughter's place. I had this feeling that if I moved, something bad was going to happen. After lying there a couple of seconds trying to get my bearings, figuring out where I was and what might be about to happen, I moved. The foot of the bed immediately collapsed on the floor. That's just one example of many I could cite of knowing something without using my senses in the normal manner.
As for what I see when aiming, I see the same thing you do. The target, the line of sight, and the instrument being aimed, as well as a myriad of other stuff that I'm probably not too concerned about. I thought this was about the non-aimers. Why are you asking the question what do you see when aiming when what you seem to want to know is how you can feel the shot without aiming? How can someone totally blind feel something that they see? Now who is being unintelligent?
Let's see if we can enlighten you some. Do you aim your fork at your mouth by looking in the mirror before you take a bite of food or do you "feel" (without seeing) that your hand and fork are on the right trajectory to get that savory bit into your mouth without stabbing yourself in the nose? Let's say that someone in the history of the world could pull a handgun out of a holster and without aiming, be able to hit a target some distance away. I know, its a big stretch of the imagination, but perhaps there was someone like this at one time. Now let's say that they were standing in the same spot (and that they had spent some time practicing this), but were now blindfolded. Do you think it would be possible, just by "feel" alone, for them to duplicate this feat without seeing the target? How about a knife thrower? I think these might be "hand-eye" coordination examples that someone with a less than feeble mind might be able to comprehend. Why don't you cogitate on that for awhile and get back to us? <hr /></blockquote>

You're now starting to talk out of your [censored]. This entire post makes no sense. I didn't have time to go to your other post earlier but I have now. Answer it.
Btw...blind people "FEEL" faces of others for their features and shape of it to "SEE" in their mind what it looks like. Pool players don't FEEL the balls or cloth before shooting. They SEE it to AIM properly. Are you getting drunk as the evening rolls on? (man, I hope my bed doesn't collapse tonight)

kevinkins
05-16-2006, 05:02 PM
"What speed do you play at Kevin? How long have you been playing? Have you done a lot of gambling for some big money or played in tournaments?"

What speed? Ball speed? Play speed?
25 years
Little gambling or tournaments.

How about you? ... does matter to this thread on aiming systems?

Kevin

25 years

pooltchr
05-16-2006, 05:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> What do you see?
Is it the center of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it a portion of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it some point of the CB to what you think is the contact point of the OB? Is it the center of the CB or another part of the CB to the edge of the OB? Is it an edge of the CB to a portion of the OB? Where does the pointing of your cue to a part of the OB come into play?

<hr /></blockquote>
What I SEE is a line moving down the cue stick, through the center of the cue ball to the point I need to aim toward in order to obtain contact at the proper contact point. For example, for a 30 degree cut shot, I need to AIM for the edge of the object ball. This is obviously not where I expect nor want to make contact. It is the AIMING POINT required to connect at the desired CONTACT POINT. Is that the answer you are looking for?
Steve

Barbara
05-16-2006, 05:59 PM
mybreak isn't trying to troll on this board. Let me think (ouch), mybreak is trying to elicit responses to explain how someone aims a shot. Hmmmm, contact point vs aiming point....

That's it. It's nothing personal. Spetty got it in her response in her response to JD (wolfdancer), etal.

What you WON'T EXPECT is for Fran to give away an explanation to answer this question/topic. It's her job for her to help you find out, and she gets paid for this. Take a lesson from Fran, and you'll understand. All mybreak is asking is that you actually define your own answer. How do you aim? Really. That's all.

Barbara

Qtec
05-17-2006, 02:35 AM
Your orginal post was,
[ QUOTE ]
Would all of you whiz kids that feel pros don't use aiming systems, aiming systems are for beginners, aiming systems are for practice only
<hr /></blockquote>

Now its changed to,
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is for those claiming to be "NON-AIMERS". <hr /></blockquote>????????????????????

Has anybody claimed that they dont aim?




Its my understanding that the 'systems' being proposed in the other thread are fixed point systems. ie there are a fixed amount of aiming points for ALL shots. If a player sticks to these aiming points he/she can pot most of the balls that come up on a pool table, which is true but not all balls.
Lets say you are using a 5 point AS and you follow it faithfully and [ assuming you can hit what you are aiming at!]you make 70% of your shots. If your average before was only 40%, then the system works for you but thats nowhere near pro level.

Here's the problem.

wei (http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/%7Ewei/pool/)

START(
%AP4Q1%Pf1T9%WM5Q4%Xl6U7%]D0D2%^V4W4

)END

Here is a shot which, lets say, is somewhere between 1/2 ball and 1/4 ball. If the player determines that the shot is closer to 1/2 ball than 1/4 ball, then the system dictates that he play 1/2 ball. There is no room for intuition, gut feeling in the system. Even if the player thinks he is going to miss, he must shoot for 1/2 ball.

If Mike S got down on the same shot aiming 1/2 ball, he would adjust to hit the ball thinner, visualising the 2 balls in contact, until it looks right.

Qtec

mybreak
05-17-2006, 03:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> "What speed do you play at Kevin? How long have you been playing? Have you done a lot of gambling for some big money or played in tournaments?"

What speed? Ball speed? Play speed?
25 years
Little gambling or tournaments.

How about you? ... does matter to this thread on aiming systems?

Kevin

25 years
<hr /></blockquote>

Me? I've been playing STEADILY for 45 years. Little in the way of tournaments, never played league stuff, but if I added up all of the money that I've played for over the years whether it was winning or losing, it would have bought one hell of a house. I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this stuff.

mybreak
05-17-2006, 04:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>
What I SEE is a line moving down the cue stick, through the center of the cue ball to the point I need to aim toward in order to obtain contact at the proper contact point. For example, for a 30 degree cut shot, I need to AIM for the edge of the object ball. This is obviously not where I expect nor want to make contact. It is the AIMING POINT required to connect at the desired CONTACT POINT. Is that the answer you are looking for?
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve, I was looking for ANYTHING I could get as far as how individuals line up, see a shot and AIM. It you AIM, somehow or some way, IT IS AN AIMING SYSTEM that's being implemented. I don't give a damn if it's contact points, aiming your cue, overlapping balls, imaginary lines, sections or segments of the CB or OB, thick or thin, ghost ball, center to edge, edge to center, edge to edge, or anything else - IT'S PART OF A KNOWN AIMING SYSTEM! PERIOD!! NOBODY CAN PLAY THIS GAME WITHOUT VISUALLY AIMING! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!
Therefore, it is part of SOME TYPE OF AIMING SYSTEM!

Both you and I aim the same way, and I'm also certain that you and I aim more ways than what you posted with variations on visualizing CB/OB relationships along with aim points and pivoting. I happen to think that it IS the best and most consistent way of aiming to consistenly make balls from anywhere on the table, but there is no right or wrong way. Hell, for MANY years I used either contact point, equal and opposite, or sectional aiming and played lights out. I've also known pros and great money players that have used everything else under the sun to aim including lights or shadows and they've played super pool.

It just frosts my butt to no end to have forum goofballs disseminating erroneous and worthless information by stating that they make balls through "feel" and don't really aim or that aiming or aiming sytems (there's that dirty nasty word again,'systems') are for beginners or those not very accomplished and that you outgrow them when you reach a certain point in your playing lifespan. BULLCRAP! The only thing that happens is that you have it so internalized that it takes a millisecond and it's often times done without much conscious effort. But, you better damn well believe that it's being relied upon and used quite heavily, at least on a subconscious or unconscious level.

Do you know why NONE OF THEM responded to my two shot scenario in describing how they see and setup on either a straight in long shot or one with almost a 90 degree cut?
Because as soon as they started describing it verbally, it would immediately show that they were in fact using some sort of an aiming system!

They might be morons when it comes to aiming systems or stating that they don't use one, but they certainly aren't stupid and morons to cut their own throat by proving that they are by contradicting themselves.

Wolfdancer was correct, the first shot which is straight in is a CENTER to CENTER hit...that's it! Plain and simple! However, you CAN'T NOT AIM CAREFULLY on a shot like that, otherwise it's easily missed. YOU MUST LINE UP!
You're either seeing the center of the CB lining up to the dead center of the OB, the shaft and ferrule of your cue going right straight through both balls to the pocket, or the edges of both balls lining up perfectly with each other like a total eclipse of the sun. If you DON'T USE some sort of careful aiming process and hit the CB on its vertical axis, the shot WILL BE MISSED.

It's the same with the 90 degree cut shot in the side pocket. You MUST hit edge of CB with the edge of the OB!
THERE IS NO SHOOTING FROM THE HIP AND "FEELING" the shot in! It MUST be AIMED carefully to pull it off because there is NO MARGIN for error! This one can be used with any and all kinds of english along with vertical center axis and adjustments may be needed, but it still has to be AIMED CAREFULLY.

Somebody on this forum that I have a lot of faith and trust in PM'd and emailed me stating that both Spiderman and Stretch are in fact very fine players. That also tells me that both of them should be able to explain, to a newbie player how to aim and line up on those two shots (or ANY shot) and aim to make them. It's ALSO what they would HAVE TO DO on those two shots themselves because you CANNOT just fire them from the hip without consciously thinking and aiming, especially if there was a thousand or two on the line and it was the last game of a hill-hill match.























shot or one with almost a 90 degree cut??

mybreak
05-17-2006, 04:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Has anybody claimed that they dont aim?
Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

You tell me. They have claimed that they shoot or line up by "FEEL" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. (How you "feel" without seeing is beyond me) They claimed that they DO NOT use ANY aiming systems and because they've outgrown them.

If they AIM, they are using some form of a KNOWN and NAMED and CATEGORIZED AIMING SYSTEM.

If they DON'T AIM, they are not of this Earth.

DickLeonard
05-17-2006, 04:59 AM
SPetty I guess you hit the nail on the head with the Post.####

pooltchr
05-17-2006, 05:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> very fine players. That also tells me that both of them should be able to explain, to a newbie player how to aim and line up on those two shots (or ANY shot) and aim to make them. <hr /></blockquote>

Not necessarily true. I know many very good players who couldn't explain to anyone exactly how they do things. The ability to play great pool is very different from the ability to teach others.
Steve

mybreak
05-17-2006, 05:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> very fine players. That also tells me that both of them should be able to explain, to a newbie player how to aim and line up on those two shots (or ANY shot) and aim to make them. <hr /></blockquote>

Not necessarily true. I know many very good players who couldn't explain to anyone exactly how they do things. The ability to play great pool is very different from the ability to teach others.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, but a lot of great players verge on the stupid side and couldn't explain much of anything that made sense.

These guys, especially Spiderman, is quite bright and VERY articulate. Not a tough job for him at all.

DickLeonard
05-17-2006, 05:20 AM
Barbara I posted in Dr. Dave world record post on aiming and the only thing I have to say about aiming is if you don't hit where your aiming all the aiming in the world won't help you.####

mybreak
05-17-2006, 05:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Barbara I posted in Dr. Dave world record post on aiming and the only thing I have to say about aiming is if you don't hit where your aiming all the aiming in the world won't help you.#### <hr /></blockquote>

That's true Dick, but the chances of hitting where you're SUPPOSED to hit any particular shot are slim and none WITHOUT AIMING, even with a great stroke.

Can you imagine NASA launching a rocket at the precise moment trying to hit Jupiter through "feel", guesswork, or intuition?

SpiderMan
05-17-2006, 07:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> Before continuing the thread everyone read the "How do Pros Aim" article in Dr Dave's post above - that may put this whole thing to rest.

Kevin <hr /></blockquote>

You are correct, that is a fine article. I'll paste the link, which appears to be hosted at Bob Jewett's site, here for convenience: How Various Pros Aim (http://www.sfbilliards.com/PnB_aiming.pdf)

But, as even that author concludes, it will never be "put to rest". Luckily, it doesn't really matter. The numerous pros interviewed used a vast and disparate array of aiming techniques. "Ghost Ball" seemed to be the only somewhat-recurring assertion, but not to a dominant extent. There were even one or two who claimed to aim by "feel".

Personally I use the "ghost ball" technique most often, but not to exclusion of others. I learned to play with no coaching, and "ghost ball" was something I thought I invented /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif. I didn't learn what everyone else called it until I read "99 Critical Shots". Now on some simple shots I just let the subconscious handle aiming - all I visualize is the desired result, and it happens, right down to how much the CB path distorts from the draw, and how far it rolls after the second rail. On very thin cuts I may visualize actual ball-to-ball contact points. But on ALL caroms I fall back to an augmented ghost-ball alignment. Most players will hit caroms too thick if they rely on feel.

What I would like to stress from that article is the one thing that everyone interviewed DID have in common - "the balls went in" for them.

The fact that so many different methods will work, and work well, ensures that some will die convinced that "their" way is "the only" way. Clearly all brains are not wired alike, and no one techinque is ever going to be a panacea. Use what works for you, as long as it makes sense.

SpiderMan

DickLeonard
05-17-2006, 09:40 AM
Mybreak you have used a poor example in NASA, if they were a poolplayer I would rank them a B player. They have had a lot of misses and miscues.####

mybreak
05-17-2006, 09:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Mybreak you have used a poor example in NASA, if they were a poolplayer I would rank them a B player. They have had a lot of misses and miscues.#### <hr /></blockquote>

LMAO, you're right, they sure have. They need better aiming systems, a more explosive power break (maybe that should be a LESS EXPLOSIVE break), and more chalk on the launch pad.

bsmutz
05-17-2006, 09:59 AM
mybreak, I will defer to your 45 years of knowledge on the subject of aiming. It is obvious to me now that you ARE the authority and that there is no one else who can hold a candle to you. Anyone who disagrees with you MUST be stupid (or verging thereon). I hereby nominate "mybreak" to be the world's official pool bulletin board aiming thread corrector. If anyone ever spots a post where someone has the audacity to state that they aim by "feel", and/or that aiming systems are for beginners, and/or aiming systems are outgrown by players as they develop in the game, please notify "mybreak" immediately so that he can jump down their throat! It has now become apparent to me that people all over the world are in danger of abandoning their aiming systems in huge numbers because of these stupid, stupid whiz kids. Pool, snooker, and especially 3C could possibly turn into a mockery with people shooting blindfolded or with their backs to the table; maybe even lying on the floor helplessly flailing their cues over their heads hoping to luck a ball in. How long can it be before a game of professional 9-ball starts to take 2-3 hours to play as the general populace eventually forgets how to aim altogether? Imagine the yellow floors as we forget how to aim at the toilet (some of us are already having trouble with this). Praise be to Allah that someone brave enough has stepped forward to fulfill this vital role. All hail the mighty "mybreak", debunker extraordinaire!

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 10:11 AM
Geez Bill, after reading your post, I realised the error of my posts, in support of "feel"
I've requested the admin to delete all of erroneous postings, and I'm emailing all my pool plying friends to abandon their free-wheeling style of play....that's if they ever want to run three balls.
I guess Jack Nicklaus has been wrong all these years, just relying on his visualization techniques.

mybreak
05-17-2006, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> mybreak, I will defer to your 45 years of knowledge on the subject of aiming. It is obvious to me now that you ARE the authority and that there is no one else who can hold a candle to you. Anyone who disagrees with you MUST be stupid (or verging thereon). I hereby nominate "mybreak" to be the world's official pool bulletin board aiming thread corrector. If anyone ever spots a post where someone has the audacity to state that they aim by "feel", and/or that aiming systems are for beginners, and/or aiming systems are outgrown by players as they develop in the game, please notify "mybreak" immediately so that he can jump down their throat! It has now become apparent to me that people all over the world are in danger of abandoning their aiming systems in huge numbers because of these stupid, stupid whiz kids. Pool, snooker, and especially 3C could possibly turn into a mockery with people shooting blindfolded or with their backs to the table; maybe even lying on the floor helplessly flailing their cues over their heads hoping to luck a ball in. How long can it be before a game of professional 9-ball starts to take 2-3 hours to play as the general populace eventually forgets how to aim altogether? Imagine the yellow floors as we forget how to aim at the toilet (some of us are already having trouble with this). Praise be to Allah that someone brave enough has stepped forward to fulfill this vital role. All hail the mighty "mybreak", debunker extraordinaire! <hr /></blockquote>

Nice post goofball. Too bad you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say that's ON TOPIC. I wonder why? DUH

mybreak
05-17-2006, 10:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Geez Bill, after reading your post, I realised the error of my posts, in support of "feel"

I guess Jack Nicklaus has been wrong all these years, just relying on his visualization techniques. <hr /></blockquote>

WOW! I had no idea Jack was a great pool player!

But, if you're referring to his golf game, you need to get all of Jacks' books. There's quite a bit of intricate detail on various aspects of the game. I don't think you better bring this golf stuff up again, you don't sound too bright about it either.

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 10:50 AM
Bill, on the stocks message board, they have a nice feature....an "ignore this poster" button...click on it, and you won't even see their asinine ramblings when you are checking the posts.
Unfortunately here, our only recourse is to skip over an ind's post's once you realise they serve no purpose other then self-aggrandizement.
We had someone else here, who demanded we stay on topic, while they strayed all over the place.....I jes can't remember who that was.
There's an old adage about arguments.....once you resort to name calling, insults....you've lost the argument.
And here, all you did was try flattery....and got all that flack

bsmutz
05-17-2006, 10:53 AM
"Nice post goofball. Too bad you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say that's ON TOPIC. I wonder why? DUH"
I already have replied "on topic" a few times, but you chose to ridicule or ignore because I was trying to make you think. This is your usual mode of behavior. You've made it apparent that you have already made up your mind about this subject and that anything anyone else can say is "stupid" or comes from inexperience. It's just been a waste of time for everyone and there is no further point in discussing it. I was hoping you would learn something about manners, respect, and how to successfully interact with your fellow humans and pool enthusiasts, but that was a waste of time also. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif It's too bad you won't allow yourself to learn from your mistakes.

Cornerman
05-17-2006, 11:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> "What speed do you play at Kevin? How long have you been playing? Have you done a lot of gambling for some big money or played in tournaments?"

What speed? Ball speed? Play speed?
25 years
Little gambling or tournaments.

How about you? ... does matter to this thread on aiming systems?

Kevin

25 years
<hr /></blockquote>I think there is some kind of importance to the question. For years on the internet, discussion on Aiming Systems have been met with criticism from all ranges of players. I also questioned the systems.

But look today. Randy Goettlicher and the Cuetech Pool School latched onto a system, developed their own view of it, and now teach it. And those great instructors all seem very happy to know and teach these systems.

I took a clinic with Nick Varner, and even though he said he just "knows" where to aim, it was clear that his arms, hands, and eyes were working and moving while he was down on the shot. And it wasn't any hand tremors.

I've incorporated several systems in my play and am glad I did. Many of the nemesis shots aren't anymore. IMO, systems can help most players. They shouldn't be looked down upon, but instead should be viewed as potential help.

Fred

mybreak
05-17-2006, 11:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> "Nice post goofball. Too bad you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say that's ON TOPIC. I wonder why? DUH"
I already have replied "on topic" a few times, but you chose to ridicule or ignore because I was trying to make you think. This is your usual mode of behavior. You've made it apparent that you have already made up your mind about this subject and that anything anyone else can say is "stupid" or comes from inexperience. It's just been a waste of time for everyone and there is no further point in discussing it. I was hoping you would learn something about manners, respect, and how to successfully interact with your fellow humans and pool enthusiasts, but that was a waste of time also. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif It's too bad you won't allow yourself to learn from your mistakes. <hr /></blockquote>

Hey numbnuts, I DID respond to your posts and then I responded back to try for a response to get YOU to think.

Here's my post:
Now we're making some progress, Billy Boy. In your entire post these TWO sentences are the only ones that I'm interested in.

In YOUR mind YOU think that this is all coming about because of the "feel" part. Nay, laddie.

It's coming about because of the "RELATIONSHIP OF THE CUE, CUE BALL, OBJECT BALL, and POCKET"...although a lot less of the pocket than you might think for right now.
THIS is the essence of aiming and what EVERYBODY SEES, even the NON-AIMERS. It happens quickly the more experienced you get and the better you are, however, it HAS to happen and ALWAYS happens.

Now, let's talk about this relationship. What do you see?
Is it the center of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it a portion of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it some point of the CB to what you think is the contact point of the OB? Is it the center of the CB or another part of the CB to the edge of the OB? Is it an edge of the CB to a portion of the OB? Where does the pointing of your cue to a part of the OB come into play?

Do you see where I'm going with this? There are a number of ways to SEE a shot and AIM. There is no right way or wrong way. It's just the right way that works best and most consistently for YOU. Some ways do work better than others.

One last thing. What if you didn't have to use the "feel" or "intuition" to tell you that you were right on track with your aim? What if you "KNEW" for a fact that it was right before you pulled the trigger? Would you want to learn or know about it?

How DO YOU SEE the relationship between the CB, OB, and cue most of the time?

YOU never answered MY POST back to you. You came on here for the first time today playing forum police. Kiss my butt. You're just the typical forum loser that's everywhere. A loud mouth hack with nothing to back it up.

pooltchr
05-17-2006, 11:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Unfortunately here, our only recourse is to skip over an ind's post's once you realise they serve no purpose other then self-aggrandizement.
We had someone else here, who demanded we stay on topic, while they strayed all over the place.....I jes can't remember who that was.
There's an old adage about arguments.....once you resort to name calling, insults....you've lost the argument.
And here, all you did was try flattery....and got all that flack
<hr /></blockquote>

Wolf,
Funny, I was starting to think that our old friend FL was back in business again! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Steve

Cornerman
05-17-2006, 11:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Its my understanding that the 'systems' being proposed in the other thread are fixed point systems. ie there are a fixed amount of aiming points for ALL shots. If a player sticks to these aiming points he/she can pot most of the balls that come up on a pool table, which is true but not all balls.
Lets say you are using a 5 point AS and you follow it faithfully and [ assuming you can hit what you are aiming at!]you make 70% of your shots. If your average before was only 40%, then the system works for you but thats nowhere near pro level. <hr /></blockquote>

I think this is a good start for the fixed point discussion. And you're right, IMO. If you only start with 5 fixed points, say, then I think you can make a high percentage of pots, but probably not all. What many readers don't realize is that once you work with some of the systems, there is a next step to 5 fixed points (or two per half plus center). You can easily refine it 7 fixed points, and 9 fixed points.

Given that idea, 9 fixed points will get virtually any shot on the table. That's how I see it. A true handful of points, rather than an infinite amount of points. And the points are actual points referenced to the object ball, not a point in space that has to be "felt" or "imagined."

If we consider most amateur players who aren't going to play for 8 hours a day every day, starting with a 2 pt. system, then a 4 pt. system can be an extreme help. For those that have the time and energy to play for 8 hours a day, more power to them.

Fred

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 11:28 AM
I think FL posts were crass, but had his own brand of humor behind them. I found them entertaining, and was sorry to see him exiled.
Of course, I was a big fan of Patrick's also.
This "45 yr playing pool" poster....could just be some 15 yr old having some fun. In those 45 yrs, has anybody heer'd of him?
This guy has nothing positive to add, and seems to have a need to just be insulting.....it can't be too soon for me, before he wears out his welcome here........

Voodoo Daddy
05-17-2006, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Barbara I posted in Dr. Dave world record post on aiming and the only thing I have to say about aiming is if you don't hit where your aiming all the aiming in the world won't help you.#### <hr /></blockquote>

This is why #### is my favorite poster..nothing but truth!!

mybreak
05-17-2006, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think FL posts were crass, but had his own brand of humor behind them. I found them entertaining, and was sorry to see him exiled.
Of course, I was a big fan of Patrick's also.
This "45 yr playing pool" poster....could just be some 15 yr old having some fun. In those 45 yrs, has anybody heer'd of him?
This guy has nothing positive to add, and seems to have a need to just be insulting.....it can't be too soon for me, before he wears out his welcome here........ <hr /></blockquote>

Why don't you give it up already, crybaby. Waaaaaaahhh, waaaaaaahhh, waaaaaaaahhh. Little boy wolfie got his butt spanked and now he's going to cry, whine, and pout until the cows come home.

If you had a clue about what's really going on in the game of pool, you'd know that a lot of positive stuff that I posted is in there. Even moreso, go back and read the entire longest thread on aiming in the history of pool forums because I'm only trying to get across what Cornerman, Fred Agnir, said as brilliantly as it could be done. Morons just like you continually blasted him in that thread. Did HE get testy and kick some butt back? Certainly he did, as well in other threads and forums. Some people are in the know. You, on the other hand, are ALWAYS going to be on the outside looking in wondering how you can get better, just like your loser buddy Mutzie.

I've played for 45 years steadily. You wanna scan drivers licenses and send them to each other for verification?
Has anybody ever heard of YOU? I told you I haven't played tournaments. What have you done. Would you like to play for a couple of grand? With that being a minimum it'll be worth my while to book a flight and room and even come to YOU.

Waaaaaahhhh, waaaaaaahhhh, waaaaaaahhhh
Get off the kick and read some of Cornerman's stuff.

Stretch
05-17-2006, 11:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> mybreak, I will defer to your 45 years of knowledge on the subject of aiming. It is obvious to me now that you ARE the authority and that there is no one else who can hold a candle to you. Anyone who disagrees with you MUST be stupid (or verging thereon). I hereby nominate "mybreak" to be the world's official pool bulletin board aiming thread corrector. If anyone ever spots a post where someone has the audacity to state that they aim by "feel", and/or that aiming systems are for beginners, and/or aiming systems are outgrown by players as they develop in the game, please notify "mybreak" immediately so that he can jump down their throat! It has now become apparent to me that people all over the world are in danger of abandoning their aiming systems in huge numbers because of these stupid, stupid whiz kids. Pool, snooker, and especially 3C could possibly turn into a mockery with people shooting blindfolded or with their backs to the table; maybe even lying on the floor helplessly flailing their cues over their heads hoping to luck a ball in. How long can it be before a game of professional 9-ball starts to take 2-3 hours to play as the general populace eventually forgets how to aim altogether? Imagine the yellow floors as we forget how to aim at the toilet (some of us are already having trouble with this). Praise be to Allah that someone brave enough has stepped forward to fulfill this vital role. All hail the mighty "mybreak", debunker extraordinaire! <hr /></blockquote>

bsmuts, good stuff! lol I've been LMAO here ever since Peeboy first ridiculed my own modest opinion. One in which i NEVER claimed not to aim. Then he took a little split hair and turned it into a huge deal backfired thread. One in which he could play judge, jury and exicutioner lol. It must be a real hadnycap to have an ego big enough to sink a ship.

It's so funny because i've got him absolutely sharked now and he dosn't even know it. All i gotta do for his lip service is rattle my zipper. "zzzzzzzzzzIP! rattle, rattle rattle..........wait for it......... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif St.

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 11:56 AM
Fred, if the thread were just about aiming systems, it might have some value...you are a very knowledgable person about pool...yet I've never seen you write anything like "I'm going to make you morons think, etc". That kind of statement makes a lot of assumptions re everybody else's "pool intelligence" and overestimates one's own relative knowledge
I use an aiming system myself....so I'm not disputing methodology.
Nick's system may not seem to him to be a conscious effort...and I'm sure that you played some pretty good pool, before switching to an aiming system....I seem to recall something about shish kebob......
Anyway, how would you feel if I showed up with no credentials on career counseling day.....and said "plastics"?

Cornerman
05-17-2006, 11:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
Anyway, how would you feel if I showed up with no credentials on career counseling day.....and said "plastics"? <hr /></blockquote>I'd feel like Mrs. Robinson was trying to seduce me again.

Fred &lt;~~~ every man should have his Mrs. Robinson

mybreak
05-17-2006, 12:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Fred, if the thread were just about aiming systems, it might have some value...you are a very knowledgable person about pool...yet I've never seen you write anything like "I'm going to make you morons think, etc". <hr /></blockquote>


WHOA! Now THERE'S a nice big, fat, juicy lie right outta the crybaby's mouth. Where was that quote from me?
Man, the babies on here will resort to anything.

Barbara
05-17-2006, 12:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> I think this is a good start for the fixed point discussion. And you're right, IMO. If you only start with 5 fixed points, say, then I think you can make a high percentage of pots, but probably not all. What many readers don't realize is that once you work with some of the systems, there is a next step to 5 fixed points (or two per half plus center). You can easily refine it 7 fixed points, and 9 fixed points.

Given that idea, 9 fixed points will get virtually any shot on the table. That's how I see it. A true handful of points, rather than an infinite amount of points. And the points are actual points referenced to the object ball, not a point in space that has to be "felt" or "imagined."

If we consider most amateur players who aren't going to play for 8 hours a day every day, starting with a 2 pt. system, then a 4 pt. system can be an extreme help. For those that have the time and energy to play for 8 hours a day, more power to them.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Joe T bases his aiming system on 9 points.

Barbara

Barbara
05-17-2006, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> Now, let's talk about this relationship. What do you see? Is it the center of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it a portion of the CB to a segment or section of the OB? Is it some point of the CB to what you think is the contact point of the OB? Is it the center of the CB or another part of the CB to the edge of the OB? Is it an edge of the CB to a portion of the OB? Where does the pointing of your cue to a part of the OB come into play? <font color="red">Wow, excellent relationship definitions!! </font color>

Do you see where I'm going with this? <font color="red"> Yeah, and ouch, you're making my brain hurt. </font color> There are a number of ways to SEE a shot and AIM. There is no right way or wrong way. It's just the right way that works best and most consistently for YOU. Some ways do work better than others.

How DO YOU SEE the relationship between the CB, OB, and cue most of the time? <font color="red">Very thought provoking question. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Thank you!

Barbara

mybreak
05-17-2006, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> I think this is a good start for the fixed point discussion. And you're right, IMO. If you only start with 5 fixed points, say, then I think you can make a high percentage of pots, but probably not all. What many readers don't realize is that once you work with some of the systems, there is a next step to 5 fixed points (or two per half plus center). You can easily refine it 7 fixed points, and 9 fixed points.

Given that idea, 9 fixed points will get virtually any shot on the table. That's how I see it. A true handful of points, rather than an infinite amount of points. And the points are actual points referenced to the object ball, not a point in space that has to be "felt" or "imagined."

If we consider most amateur players who aren't going to play for 8 hours a day every day, starting with a 2 pt. system, then a 4 pt. system can be an extreme help. For those that have the time and energy to play for 8 hours a day, more power to them.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Joe T bases his aiming system on 9 points.

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

That's right, Barbara. Do you have the training balls? I do and they're spaced out at 3/16" apart from each other and if you get too far away between CB and OB on the table, I don't know how you could possibly see anything more finite than 3/16". Even 3/16 is tough, and there is room for error by a little based on the size of the pocket and cut angle into it. It ALL helps and gives a better understanding.

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 12:49 PM
I think what we have here is known in psychopathology as "grandiosity"
an inflated self-esteem or self-worth, usually manifested as content of thinking or talk with themes reflecting the patient's belief that he or she is the greatest or has special attributes or abilities.
We might just call it "delusions of grandeur."

As Dr. Eric Berne wrote in his classic "Games People Play..."
We think we’re relating to other people–but actually we’re all playing games.

mybreak
05-17-2006, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think what we have here is known in psychopathology as "grandiosity"
an inflated self-esteem or self-worth, usually manifested as content of thinking or talk with themes reflecting the patient's belief that he or she is the greatest or has special attributes or abilities.
We might just call it "delusions of grandeur."

As Dr. Eric Berne wrote in his classic "Games People Play..."
We think we’re relating to other people–but actually we’re all playing games.

<hr /></blockquote>

ROTFLMFAO...hey forum shrink, I think you need some long term deep psychological help yourself. Waaaaahhhhh, Waaaaahhhh, waaaaaaahhhhh. I thought you had me on Ignore, another one of your big, fat, juicy lies.
Waaaaaahhh, waaaaahhhhh, waaaaahhhh. Now you're turning into a psycho stalker.

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 01:02 PM
The difference being that Fred could, and has in the past, made the same points, without the insults, slurs, etc.

pooltchr
05-17-2006, 01:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think what we have here is known in psychopathology as "grandiosity"
an inflated self-esteem or self-worth, usually manifested as content of thinking or talk with themes reflecting the patient's belief that he or she is the greatest or has special attributes or abilities.
We might just call it "delusions of grandeur."

As Dr. Eric Berne wrote in his classic "Games People Play..."
We think we’re relating to other people–but actually we’re all playing games.

<hr /></blockquote>
Is this the one where people try to compensate for having such a little wee-wee?

Stretch
05-17-2006, 01:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I think what we have here is known in psychopathology as "grandiosity"
an inflated self-esteem or self-worth, usually manifested as content of thinking or talk with themes reflecting the patient's belief that he or she is the greatest or has special attributes or abilities.
We might just call it "delusions of grandeur."

As Dr. Eric Berne wrote in his classic "Games People Play..."
We think we’re relating to other people–but actually we’re all playing games.

<hr /></blockquote>
Is this the one where people try to compensate for having such a little wee-wee? <hr /></blockquote>

LMFAO!! St.

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 01:16 PM
lol
well, sort of.....I can't accuse mybreak of playing games, without "playing games" myself. I was just hoping mybreak would give us a break....
I lost that game you mentioned, in the 6th grade.....and haven't won one since.

mybreak
05-17-2006, 01:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote>
Is this the one where people try to compensate for having such a little wee-wee? <hr /></blockquote>

WOW! Thinking and talking about the size of my wee-wee?
I had NO IDEA that this was a gay pool forum and you were one of THOSE people. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Well, I guess your kind are everywhere now. But you're also getting your gay buddy Stretch all turned on too. He was laughing but it was one of those psychosexual deep throated kinds of laughs.

Stretch
05-17-2006, 01:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote>
Is this the one where people try to compensate for having such a little wee-wee? <hr /></blockquote>

WOW! Thinking and talking about the size of my wee-wee?
I had NO IDEA that this was a gay pool forum and you were one of THOSE people. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Well, I guess your kind are everywhere now. But you're also getting your gay buddy Stretch all turned on too. He was laughing but it was one of those psychosexual deep throated kinds of laughs. <hr /></blockquote>

Oh my! such a hatefull comeback, and Steve was only guessing............. lol. St.

mybreak
05-17-2006, 01:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Stretch:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>

<hr /></blockquote>
Is this the one where people try to compensate for having such a little wee-wee? <hr /></blockquote>

WOW! Thinking and talking about the size of my wee-wee?
I had NO IDEA that this was a gay pool forum and you were one of THOSE people. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Well, I guess your kind are everywhere now. But you're also getting your gay buddy Stretch all turned on too. He was laughing but it was one of those psychosexual deep throated kinds of laughs. <hr /></blockquote>

Oh my! such a hatefull comeback, and Steve was only guessing............. lol. St. <hr /></blockquote>

That's called perceptive and insightful, Skippy.

bsmutz
05-17-2006, 01:42 PM
Ouch, must have touched a sore spot there, Steve. Maybe we need an aiming system thread for him on how to get the tweezers on it without accidentally grabbing a pubic hair instead.

mybreak
05-17-2006, 01:46 PM
At this stage I'd like to point out that when Spiderman made his post, I was done with this thread for all intents and purposes. It was about the subject of aiming,aiming systems, or the lack thereof.

Since his post, wolfdancer has made 7 childish, accusatory, and inflammatory posts towards me with NOTHING pool related. Stretch, has made about 3 or 4, and bsmutz has made 2or 3 along with someone that's supposed to be a professional teacher, pooltchr. And these jerkoffs have the NERVE to talk about name calling, arguing, and keeping things on subject. Barbara and Fred BOTH have discussed pool related stuff which I answered, and ALL of these forum idiots continue to sabatoge anything fruitful. This place is LOADED with losers, in more ways than one.

bsmutz
05-17-2006, 01:50 PM
Hey, you started it. Look at the first post on this thread, ahole.

Qtec
05-17-2006, 02:11 PM
<font color="blue"> </font color>
I think this is a good start for the fixed point discussion. And you're right, IMO. <font color="blue"> Geez Fred. I dont know what to say! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> If you only start with 5 fixed points, say, then I think you can make a high percentage of pots, but probably not all. What many readers don't realize is that once you work with some of the systems, there is a next step to 5 fixed points (or two per half plus center). You can easily refine it 7 fixed points, and 9 fixed points. <font color="blue">yeah.... and on and on to an infinite amout of contact points- then we are into ghost ball territory. </font color>

Given that idea, 9 fixed points will get virtually any shot on the table. <font color="blue"> But you still have to distinguish those points, sometimes at a distance. </font color> That's how I see it. A true handful of points, rather than an infinite amount of points. <font color="blue">I agree. its a great starting point but ultimately, a player must be able to visualise a sillouette and know the path of the OB after contact. </font color> And the points are actual points referenced to the object ball, not a point in space that has to be "felt" or "imagined." <font color="blue"> Fred, check out my shot above. If I told you to line up that shot 1/2 ball would you be able to recognise that you were going to miss?</font color>

If we consider most amateur players who aren't going to play for 8 hours a day every day, starting with a 2 pt. system, then a 4 pt. system can be an extreme help. For those that have the time and energy to play for 8 hours a day, more power to them.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

All systems/ methods are learning aids.
Learning is one thing, playing is another.
Qtec

Qtec
05-17-2006, 02:18 PM
Your credibility has just dropped to ZERO. LMAO
Well actually, it hasnt dropped, more like been confirmed. LOL
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 02:27 PM
Bill, this whole thread has been useless....since the supposed topic was hijacked off of another thread, where it was covered quite well.
I never saw this as a thread on the merits of, or reasons for, using an aiming system Vs any non system based on "feel".
It began with a put down on everybody that didn't use a system, and deteriorated from there......
But now, he is trying to come across as the good guy here....
To get back on point though ...after reading the article on "How the Pros Aim"......I'd say most of them by "feel" without a really conscious effert to adhere to an aiming system.....since most aiming systems don't have any finite points to include the application of english. The system might get them into the ball park....but it's feel, muscle memory, etc, that will overcome the limits of that system

kevinkins
05-17-2006, 02:33 PM
BTW how many aiming systems are out there described in a way that can analyze in a meaningful way. Ghost ball, Hal's and prorietary ones any others? Is there a list? Is it just a handful?

- Kevin

Stretch
05-17-2006, 03:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mybreak:</font><hr> At this stage I'd like to point out that when Spiderman made his post, I was done with this thread for all intents and purposes. It was about the subject of aiming,aiming systems, or the lack thereof.

Since his post, wolfdancer has made 7 childish, accusatory, and inflammatory posts towards me with NOTHING pool related. Stretch, has made about 3 or 4, and bsmutz has made 2or 3 along with someone that's supposed to be a professional teacher, pooltchr. And these jerkoffs have the NERVE to talk about name calling, arguing, and keeping things on subject. Barbara and Fred BOTH have discussed pool related stuff which I answered, and ALL of these forum idiots continue to sabatoge anything fruitful. This place is LOADED with losers, in more ways than one. <hr /></blockquote>

We are where we are because of your astonishing lack of people skills and good judgement. Quite simply, you are being treated in the exact same manor you treat others. Now you cry foul? give me a break. So what if we've each flamed you out a few times. Have you counted your put downs and jabs? What is your post count now 80? You can't even open your mouth without sounding like a total know it all a$$. St.

dr_dave
05-17-2006, 03:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> BTW how many aiming systems are out there described in a way that can analyze in a meaningful way. Ghost ball, Hal's and prorietary ones any others? Is there a list? Is it just a handful?<hr /></blockquote>
Many "systems" that have been described here over the years are linked to under "aiming systems" here (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Bob Jewett's November '99 BD article (http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-11.pdf) also describes and illustrates various aiming "systems."

Regards,
Dr. Dave

dr_dave
05-17-2006, 03:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>9 fixed points will get virtually any shot on the table. That's how I see it. A true handful of points, rather than an infinite amount of points. And the points are actual points referenced to the object ball, not a point in space that has to be "felt" or "imagined."<hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

FYI in a previous post (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199023&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=), I presented arguments and analyses that suggest that many more fixed points of aim might be required for a typical range of shots. I don't claim the analysis is perfect, but it suggests the number might be closer to 20.

Regards,
Dave

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 03:46 PM
My own way of extending the ref points is to aim the inside edge of the cue, instead of the middle, on shots that don't quite fit the "eye"for a standard ....say 1/2 or center ball hit....that lie in that grey area between that and the next ref point
I don't advocate it for anyone else, but it works for me.....to the extent that I can hit where I am aiming at.

kevinkins
05-17-2006, 04:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> BTW how many aiming systems are out there described in a way that can analyze in a meaningful way. Ghost ball, Hal's and prorietary ones any others? Is there a list? Is it just a handful?<hr /></blockquote>
Many "systems" that have been described here over the years are linked to under "aiming systems" here (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Bob Jewett's November '99 BD article (http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-11.pdf) also describes and illustrates various aiming "systems."

Regards,
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Looks like there is more than a handfull but less than 15 published ... is this true?

dr_dave
05-17-2006, 04:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> BTW how many aiming systems are out there described in a way that can analyze in a meaningful way. Ghost ball, Hal's and prorietary ones any others? Is there a list? Is it just a handful?<hr /></blockquote>
Many "systems" that have been described here over the years are linked to under "aiming systems" here (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html).

Bob Jewett's November '99 BD article (http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1999-11.pdf) also describes and illustrates various aiming "systems."

Regards,
Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Looks like there is more than a handfull but less than 15 published ... is this true?<hr /></blockquote>

I don't know. It depends how you count them. I've heard many people claim they have unique aiming systems, but many of the systems are similar. Also, there are aiming systems for all types of shots (cuts, frozen balls, caroms, kicks, banks, jumps, shots close to the rail, etc!). I assume you are considering just basic cut shots. If not, the number is astronomical.

Dave

DickLeonard
05-17-2006, 05:37 PM
Voodoo Daddy thank you it makes me want to post more. I think I have to study the aiming posts but now it has become larger than the Bible.####

Bob_Jewett
05-17-2006, 06:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> ... Looks like there is more than a handfull but less than 15 published ... is this true? <hr /></blockquote>
ghost ball
corrected ghost ball
inch and an eighth
Cranfield's arrow
Worst's ball track
Western's fractional ball with carom angle indicator
fractional ball
several kinds of stick aiming
lights on the balls
using the shadow at the base of the ball
"center of the football" (also called "lens," see Byrne, Kukla and Hahn)
inverse proportional distances for a close object ball
twice-as-full system for a frozen cue ball
ten-times-fuller system for two frozen object balls
The Tracks (Kanov and Stauch)
The Tunnel (also in K&amp;S??)
Distant point (see Martin for spot shots)
Double the distance (similar to the "football")
Aiming by carom angle
Hal Mix's nearest-point/farthest-point method

There are lots of books that talk about aiming. Kukla's book is about nothing but aiming. Ron Vitello's book covers the use of lights extensively in combination with stick aiming. Lebeck's book is largely about aiming. Kanov and Stauch have a long section on aiming. Western's book gives you all possible carom angles for lots of fractional hits, along with the cut angle for each fraction, but I think it's out of print.

cushioncrawler
05-17-2006, 06:30 PM
Would it be ok to say that all feel-systemz might be called aim-systemz? (ie that they need aim). And that all aim-systemz might be called feel? (ie that they need feel).

There are possibly a number of existing definitionz of aim and feel -- but i am too lazy to look around. I think that there might be at least 3 feelz.

(1)... "Feel-contact" -- Drawing an imaginary line along and beyond the cue (ie a qline, or aim-line), but feeling the needed qball-objectball contact -- ie "feel-contact" (ie a ghost ball uzually) -- "feel-contact" iz what most of us do i think.

[[[ To be honest, i consider that all actions need feel -- something az suppozedly simple and linear az drawing an imaginary line along the centerline of a cue, and beyond, iz 100% feel in my opinion -- ie the simplest aiming-system for the simplest dead straight pot iz therefore 100% feel anyhow -- but i dont feel like starting a new war before the old iz finished -- pun intended.]]]

(2)... "Feel-line" -- Not uzing a qline, but uzing "feel-line", such that u feel that the qball will go to the needed place (ie to the ghost ball uzually) -- here the qline iz totally ignored -- and the stroke mechanics are totally ignored (ie uzing "feel-stroke") -- and the exact qtip aim on the qball iz partially ignored (ie the qball iz your primary focus, but u let the qtip sit and aim and waggle anywhere it likes, by feel -- "feel-tip"). Here i assume that u (we) uze "feel-contact" allso.

[[[ I can play english billiardz quite well uzing "feel-line" -- actually, it iz the most enjoyable way for me -- but some sorts of shots work better than otherz -- i revizit it occasionally, its an old friend.]]]

(3A)... "Feel-pot-A" -- Here we uze "feel-line" but without uzing "feel-contact".

(3B)... "Feel-pot-B" -- We dont uze "feel-contact" nor "feel-line" -- here i have described what it iznt, rather than what it iz.

[[[ I think that i uze "feel-pot-A" for thin cuts, especially at very short range -- and i think that i uze "feel-pot-B" for every shot when playing nursery-cannonz -- but i dont know if A or B are uzed by many pool playerz for ordinary sorts of shots.

[[[U might say that "feel-pot-A &amp; B" are absurd notionz -- but there have been a few Nobel Prizez handed out for particle phyzics with even less proof.]]]

(4)... I suppoze that there are other "feelz", and other combinationz.

Cueless Joey
05-17-2006, 08:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Aiming by carom angle
Hal Mix's nearest-point/farthest-point method

<hr /></blockquote>
Ah, Hal Mix's Tangent Line "aiming" method?

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 10:36 PM
Until Efran comes on here and says there is only one way to aim.....everything else is open to debate and interpretation.
your "systems" are as good as anything else mentioned here...'cept mine, of course
goes without saying

kevinkins
05-18-2006, 03:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> ... Looks like there is more than a handfull but less than 15 published ... is this true? <hr /></blockquote>
ghost ball
corrected ghost ball
inch and an eighth
Cranfield's arrow
Worst's ball track
Western's fractional ball with carom angle indicator
fractional ball
several kinds of stick aiming
lights on the balls
using the shadow at the base of the ball
"center of the football" (also called "lens," see Byrne, Kukla and Hahn)
inverse proportional distances for a close object ball
twice-as-full system for a frozen cue ball
ten-times-fuller system for two frozen object balls
The Tracks (Kanov and Stauch)
The Tunnel (also in K&amp;S??)
Distant point (see Martin for spot shots)
Double the distance (similar to the "football")
Aiming by carom angle
Hal Mix's nearest-point/farthest-point method

There are lots of books that talk about aiming. Kukla's book is about nothing but aiming. Ron Vitello's book covers the use of lights extensively in combination with stick aiming. Lebeck's book is largely about aiming. Kanov and Stauch have a long section on aiming. Western's book gives you all possible carom angles for lots of fractional hits, along with the cut angle for each fraction, but I think it's out of print.
<hr /></blockquote>

Never knew there were so many named systems. Thanks goes to you and Dr Dave for maintaining a history of them. I will have to take a look at each. They will have simularities - heck its all the same physics.

- Kevin

Fran Crimi
05-18-2006, 05:47 AM
LOL! Barbara, you're a pisser...

Here's my take on the whole aiming thing...

Aiming can be either a conscious or an unconscious act. When we do it unconsciously, it's the direct result of past performance which has been ingrained through repetition. The unconscious mind does not distinguish right from wrong. It only knows habit, so when the unconcsious process fails us on a particular shot, we need to become conscious in order to correct the bad habit. When we repeat the corrected process enough times we will have ingrained a new and corrected unconscious process.

Every pool player who has experienced playing in the 'zone' knows that it's the ultimate, the best, the thing we all strive for because that's when we play our best. Playing in the zone is a mix of conscious and unconscious, with more towards the unconscious: For example: not remembering how you just ran out that last rack, or parts of it missing in your conscious mind. But you do remember that it was GREAT!

I think it's a mistake to feel you need to use a system every time you line up a shot. I think it hurts your potential for playing in the zone. It hurts any potential rhythm you may strive for in the game.

However, a system does help with the occasional shot where you remember your unconscious mind having failed you in the past, particularly in competition. But when you get back to the practice table, repetition will have eliminated future need to draw on a conscious system for that shot in the future, so you won't have to disrupt your rhythmic flow and potential for playing in the zone.

So those who claim that they don't know how they aim are simply relying more on their unconscious process resulting from repetition. And if they can run 430 balls, like my friend Gene Nagy who doesn't have a clue as to how he aims, then their unconscious process is working for them. And no, you don't have to run 430 balls to rely on your unconscious mind. That was an extreme example of how it can work.

And it's just plain silly and unfair to try to force someone into describing what comes so naturally and unconsciously to them, just to try to satisfy an anal retentive need to prove that everyone uses a so-called-system. Hell, going to the bathroom can be called a system too---how do YOU approach the toilet?? Sheesh. And then to go around berating people who don't comply with your command....unreal.

(Feel free to substitute the word 'subconscious' for 'unconscious.')

And while I'm at it..you can take this to the bank..I think it's wrong wrong wrong to force feed anyone an aiming system before it can be determined that the player is doing just fine on their own with their subconscious mind.

Fran

wolfdancer
05-18-2006, 07:53 AM
WOW !!!!!!!!!
That's the best post I've read on the issue of aiming system Vs feel. AND...should end the "debate"
What I read into your explanation is that you can't focus on an aiming system, and be into the zone, at the same time...and since players are at their best when they are in the zone...they are aiming by "feel"
So the only question that remains.......
How do I get there?
Barbara's a what?????

ras314
05-18-2006, 08:49 AM
Fran, your's is one of the best posts on this whole nutty thread.

I have never "aimed" a cue or cb at an object ball, maybe why I shoot so badly? Anyway I well remember starting to play the game and realizing to get the ob to go left I had to get the cb to hit it on the right side. Ok, so I was very young then. The progression from there was simply keep hitting balls until they started going where I wanted. I am still much more concerned with hitting the cb with a good quality stroke at the right spot and speed than I am with any "aiming system". Personally I feel good memory and "feel" is much more important.

Of course I would make a lousy instructor. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Stretch
05-18-2006, 09:51 AM
That's why we love ya Sis. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif thanks for putting everything into perspective. Great summery, i'm saveing that one. St.

Bob_Jewett
05-18-2006, 09:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr>
Ah, Hal Mix's Tangent Line "aiming" method?
<hr /></blockquote>
That isn't what I was referring to, but I may have to look through his book again.

Before I first met Hal, I used the carom angle to aim the object ball on some shots. I learned carom billiards and pocket billiards separately at the same time. By that I mean that at carom, I have relatively little idea of where the first ball is going compared to when I'm playing pool. My feel at that game is for the cue ball, not the object ball. But on some pool shots, I can transfer the carom knowledge so I know that if I can get a particular carom angle, the object ball must go into the pocket.

The system of Hal's I was referring to is the one which takes the point on the cue ball that is closest to the pocket and the point on the object ball that is the farthest from the pocket and has you drive the point on the cue ball to the point on the object ball.

Tom_In_Cincy
05-18-2006, 09:56 AM
Fran,
I am on the WRONG coast.
I could only imagine how great it would be like having a playing/practice/mentor partner with your attitude and insight.

Bob_Jewett
05-18-2006, 10:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote kevinkins:</font><hr> ...
Never knew there were so many named systems. Thanks goes to you and Dr Dave for maintaining a history of them. I will have to take a look at each. They will have simularities - heck its all the same physics. .. <hr /></blockquote>
Thanks. I don't keep a history, really. I just spouted the ones I remembered off the top of my head. For history, I think we need to ask Shamos.

Systems aren't really named well. The names I used above may be entirely different from the names origially used to describe the system if the author even felt he needed to use a name.

As for physics ... well ... no. Many aiming systems are total trash when studied geometrically/mathematically/physically. Below is a post I made quite some time ago during a previous battle in the Righteous and Holy Aiming Systems Wars.

My own view is that as long as you are consciously thinking about aim on the shot, you are the odds on favorite to shoot the spheroid into the gum. Be sure to read Fran's post just above. Also be sure to watch Rodney Morris play some time.

Bob

----------------------------------------------------------------

[Someone else said in RSB:]
&gt; ... balls being knocked into pockets is a real world example of the
&gt; specific application of some of the rules that govern&lt;describe&gt;
&gt; the workings of the physical world

&gt; these rules are not open to interpretation

Well, yes, but.... My experience is that the majority of people
cannot make the connection between abstract geometry (such as a
half-ball hit) and what happens while they play pool. It may
be true that cut angle is a continuous function of the fullness
of hit, but most people have neither use for nor understanding of
a concept such as "function of".

For such people, I think it is not helpful to go into any more
detail in a system than is required to draw their attention to
the shot. It is not important what the system is as long as they
believe in it and it sort of gets them into the right ball park.
Their subconscious will do the rest, as it does for all players
who can play a lick, Iron Willie and Virtual Pool excepted.

Ask players what the cut angle is for a half-ball hit and the
majority (or a substantial minority) will say 45 degrees. This
is in spite of their having shot hundreds of half-ball hits and
hundreds of 45-degree cuts but never in the same shot. Many
people need an explanation of what a "right angle" is for the
kiss-line for position play -- people have even built special
fixtures for the pool table to illustrate two perpendicular
lines. Most people are not geometrians.

Aiming is as much psychology as it is physics. Arguing that the
physics of a system is wrong doesn't prevent the psychology from
working, one way or another. On the other hand, it's not clear
to me why people who know a system works for them psychologically
argue it to be valid physically. There's no point.

pooltchr
05-18-2006, 11:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> The system of Hal's I was referring to is the one which takes the point on the cue ball that is closest to the pocket and the point on the object ball that is the farthest from the pocket and has you drive the point on the cue ball to the point on the object ball. <hr /></blockquote>

Bob,
clarification please. "The point on the cue ball that is closest to the object ball"....Is this as it sits prior to shooting, or what would be the point closest to the pocket at the time of impact with the object ball?
I'm not familiar with this particular aiming system.
Steve

Bob_Jewett
05-18-2006, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> The system of Hal's I was referring to is the one which takes the point on the cue ball that is closest to the pocket and the point on the object ball that is the farthest from the pocket and has you drive the point on the cue ball to the point on the object ball. <hr /></blockquote>

Bob,
clarification please. "The point on the cue ball that is closest to the object ball"....Is this as it sits prior to shooting, or what would be the point closest to the pocket at the time of impact with the object ball?
I'm not familiar with this particular aiming system.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>
I didn't say, "The point on the cue ball that is closest to the object ball."

Both of the points are as they sit before you shoot.

pooltchr
05-18-2006, 02:57 PM
Bob,
My bad...that's what happens when I don't read what I wrote before I hit the button. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
Anyway, that's an interesting concept. I may have to test it out next time I am in the pool room. Thanks
Steve

heater451
05-18-2006, 03:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Voodoo Daddy thank you it makes me want to post more. I think I have to study the aiming posts but now it has become larger than the Bible.#### <hr /></blockquote>I can see the book now. . ."The Da Houle Code".


======================

wolfdancer
05-18-2006, 03:55 PM
Steve, I had Hal's book, an autographed copy,( wish I'd kept it) and Hal was friends with, and shared some of his ideas with Tony A. (Playing off the Rail)
Either Tony, or the book, called it a parallel aiming method,....I believe
The idea was, as I remember to point your cue through the OB at the pocket....then keeping the same cue angle...go back to the CB....and you have the correct, no english CB contact point.....which is identical to the point on the OB closest to the pocket. With no english, the balls will be in a straight line at impact, pointing to the pocket, is the way I visualise it.......getting there, is my problem
Tony claimed that was the method that he used.....
I've seen better players, but no one better at cutting in a thin, no english, shot then Tony.
He slices em so thin, he could work in a Jewish Deli.....

Barbara
05-18-2006, 05:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> LOL! Barbara, you're a pisser...

<hr /></blockquote>

Yeah, well if Charlie Whats-is-Name and etal can come on this board with shameless publicity, then MAYBE I can plug for you once in a while, right?

Barbara

Stretch
05-18-2006, 05:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Steve, I had Hal's book, an autographed copy,( wish I'd kept it) and Hal was friends with, and shared some of his ideas with Tony A. (Playing off the Rail)
Either Tony, or the book, called it a parallel aiming method,....I believe
The idea was, as I remember to point your cue through the OB at the pocket....then keeping the same cue angle...go back to the CB....and you have the correct, no english CB contact point.....which is identical to the point on the OB closest to the pocket. With no english, the balls will be in a straight line at impact, pointing to the pocket, is the way I visualise it.......getting there, is my problem
Tony claimed that was the method that he used.....
I've seen better players, but no one better at cutting in a thin, no english, shot then Tony.
He slices em so thin, he could work in a Jewish Deli..... <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Wolf. Like you, getting there with thin cuts was always a challenge for me. I'm much more consistant with them now. This helped me for what it's worth. If your practicing with someone just take a min. or two and set up a variety of frozen ball combo's wired to a pocket in different locations around the table. Now set up your cueball for a full ball hit on the first frozen ball which will thin the other frozen ball down. Line yourself up as if to shoot. When your satisfied your lined up centre ball to centre ball (don't move!) have your assistant take away that ball. What do you see now? This actually serprises a lot of people when they see it. Your lined up perfectly for a centre ball thin cut.

After doing this a whole bunch of times i started to find that i could judge very well where to hit the cueball that would just brush the ob useing centre ball. It helped me to hit low (draw) on the cb as it gives you better accuracy in achieving contact along the cb's verticle axis. Unintended side ruins more thin cuts than any other errors put together. The draw stroke also acts in "breaking or slowing down" the CB so that it's easier to control the runnout.

On short shots for thin cuts my approach for "cinching" them is quite different. I use inside english because it's easier to see the line running from the inside edge of the cueball to the outside edge of the ob useing inside english. i compensate for throw by lineing up for a slightly thicker hit, then i just throw it down useing inside english.

Just my 2 cents /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif St.

wolfdancer
05-18-2006, 05:50 PM
Thanks, I'll try that out

pooltchr
05-18-2006, 07:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Bob,
My bad...that's what happens when I don't read what I wrote before I hit the button. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
Anyway, that's an interesting concept. I may have to test it out next time I am in the pool room. Thanks
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Well, for anyone interested, I did try it out briefly tonight, and found it quite effective. I even showed it to an APA 1, and she was getting it. I can see some interesting possibilities there.
Steve

DickLeonard
05-19-2006, 06:17 AM
Heater451 Now I will be in court with you over the Title. Your case will be airtight here it is on the CCBoard dated 5/18/06.####

DickLeonard
05-19-2006, 06:23 AM
Wolfdancer What is a conundrum? I thought that wasn't any good for preventing Aids or HPV.####

DickLeonard
05-19-2006, 06:36 AM
Mybreak as for Jack Nicklaus's books they were all written with the help of someone who could make sense of Jack's thoughts and put them down on paper. And 90% of golf pros are college grads. Outside of Steve Mizerak I can't name anyone who went to college. I know there must be someone else.####

DickLeonard
05-19-2006, 06:49 AM
Mybreak I posted about a show on the Golf Channel about aiming a putt and how everyones aiming can be different, the picture sent to the brain doesn't have to be interpreted as the true line of aim. Golfers spend thousands because they can make millions while poolplayers make hundreds a wouldn't spend a time to consult with professional.

So no one is studying pool but everyone is studying golf. You can go on the Golf Channel and they have a library of 2900 lessons one can take. ####

pooltchr
05-19-2006, 07:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Outside of Steve Mizerak I can't name anyone who went to college. I know there must be someone else.#### <hr /></blockquote>

I believe we just had a thread about a certain WPBA pro who just got her degree...
Steve

Cornerman
05-19-2006, 08:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> I think this is a good start for the fixed point discussion. And you're right, IMO. If you only start with 5 fixed points, say, then I think you can make a high percentage of pots, but probably not all. What many readers don't realize is that once you work with some of the systems, there is a next step to 5 fixed points (or two per half plus center). You can easily refine it 7 fixed points, and 9 fixed points.

Given that idea, 9 fixed points will get virtually any shot on the table. That's how I see it. A true handful of points, rather than an infinite amount of points.

[ QUOTE ]
Joe T bases his aiming system on 9 points.

Barbara <hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>

I think that's per side, making it a total of 19. And surely if people like Joe's systems, it's a pretty strong system.

If people actually bought Joe Tucker's system, they would be able to appreciate how the various Houle systems work.

Fred

Cornerman
05-19-2006, 08:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>9 fixed points will get virtually any shot on the table. That's how I see it. <hr /></blockquote>
Fred,

FYI in a previous post (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=199023&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=&amp;PHPSESSID=), I presented arguments and analyses that suggest that many more fixed points of aim might be required for a typical range of shots. I don't claim the analysis is perfect, but it suggests the number might be closer to 20.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote> 20 total would be about what Joe Tucker's system uses. And I think this analysis points in favor of relational aiming and what we've been saying for years. There is a finite, not infinite amount of points that will make all shots.

And, as I just said on another post, if you can understand Joe's system, then you should be able to understand several of the less numbered point systems.

Fred

Vagabond
05-19-2006, 08:42 AM
My system is `Redneck aiming-kick ass and put the B**ch in the Ditch`.I ain`t joking and it works. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Barbara
05-19-2006, 08:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>

I think that's per side, making it a total of 19. And surely if people like Joe's systems, it's a pretty strong system.

If people actually bought Joe Tucker's system, they would be able to appreciate how the various Houle systems work.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

He also uses lines through the table, too. He showed me at VF, but I was only on a 30-minute break from the tourny desk and I was a little tired and still had to run up to my room.

Barbara

Tom_In_Cincy
05-19-2006, 10:34 AM
Nick Varner and Max Eberle come to mind.

The list is endless for players that didn't finish high school.

Bob_Jewett
05-19-2006, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>... There is a finite, not infinite amount of points that will make all shots. .... <hr /></blockquote>
This is obviously true. 10 billion billion is enough. 10 billion billion is a finite number. The problem for those who are geometrically inclined is to figure out how many are needed.

Imagine a ball is on the spot and the cue ball is near the foot rail so that you have to shoot the ball into a far corner pocket. What is the angular accuracy required to make the shot? This is a fairly simple problem if you know how wide the pocket is. Suppose the head corner pocket fits two balls across even if they are "facing" the ball on the spot. The error in the angle you use can be no more than arctan(1.125/75) since you can only afford half a ball error to the left or right and the distance to the pocket from the spot is 75 inches. Working through the numbers, this gives an allowed angle error of 0.8 degrees.

Is this a reasonable test? I expect to be able to make such shots most of the time. Maybe you're satisfied with only being able to make shots that are half as long -- the object ball about 3 diamonds from the pocket. In that case the required angle accuracy is about twice as large or 1.6 degrees.

The required angle accuracy tells us directly how many different cut angles we need to be able to use. Simply divide the range of cut angles by the required accuracy. I don't think it's fair to require either shot to be made over the whole 180 degree range (90 degree cut to the right to 90 degree cut to the left), so let's limit ourselves to cuts no worse than 45 degrees. For the tough shot from the spot, you need 90/0.8 or about 112 different cut angles at your disposal. For the easier shot that is only 3 diamonds from the pocket, you need about half as many angles or about 56 to cover the +-45 degree range from straight in.

So, the bottom line is that if you really have only 20 or so angles geometrically at your disposal, you won't be able to play a lick. Please note that this is a geometric analysis, and not a psychological analysis. If you have a problem with the analysis, please discuss it in geometrical terms, not psychological.

Fran Crimi
05-19-2006, 05:25 PM
Me. And I graduated, too.

Fran

Bob_Jewett
05-19-2006, 06:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>... Outside of Steve Mizerak I can't name anyone who went to college. I know there must be someone else.#### <hr /></blockquote>
Nick Varner and Dan Louie were both National Collegiate champions. I imagine Dick Lane had a degree. Tom Jennings, who won the US Open (14.1) twice (1976, 1977) was a college math teacher.

Rich R.
05-20-2006, 05:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Outside of Steve Mizerak I can't name anyone who went to college. I know there must be someone else.#### <hr /></blockquote>Max Eberle attended college, but I don't know if he graduated or not. He was a two time National Collegiate Pool Champion, 1993 &amp; 1994.
IIRC, Tiffany Nelson is a college graduate.

wolfdancer
05-20-2006, 10:44 AM
I never could find one that met my academic standards