PDA

View Full Version : Relational Aiming 102



Cornerman
05-17-2006, 11:49 AM
Obviously, mybreak is having a good time, so I'll wade in and be his less aggressive partner.

As normal, there are a lot of answers in the posts without understanding much about the relational aiming. That's mostly because it's very difficult to explain on the posts.

Now, if anyone is in Las Vegas right now (5/17/06), I can show you first hand what some of these systems are.

But, here's some answers to some of the questions:

Q. How many fixed points are we talking about?
A. In what some will call the two angle system, there are actually more than two angles. There are seven fixed points, including center to center, the two angles per side, and then half-ball aims per side. You can easily see the refinement to add another reference point per side, to make a nine fixed point system. I suppose an 11 point system is doable, but that would probably be as far as anyone would consider going.

Q. How many ball relational systems are there?
A. As many as you can think of. They all seem to get you to a common point.

Q. What is stick aiming?
A. A method that uses a reference of the angle of the stick, a point on the object ball, and a part of the cueball, or any/all of the above. Usually you start with an aim of the stick, then using your grip hand, the backhand, you would pivot around your bridge to get to the working aim/stroke line.

Q. What other types of aiming are there other than ghost ball and contact points?
A. Ferrule aiming, spots on the wall, the light system, shadow aiming, as well as "geometric aiming" like double the distance.

Q. How do you aim?
A. For most shots, I just shoot. For many shots that are less intuitive like blind back cuts, close quarter cuts, I use any number of systems specific to the shot. My "main" system would be a stick aiming system based on the theoretical contact point.

Q. What about aiming with english?
A. The beauty of shooting with some of these systems is that the translation to using english (with a normal shaft) is easy and goes hand in hand. I've never seen a good relation with shooting with english and the ghost ball method other than "feeling."

Q. Why don't people teach this stuff?
A. They do. The simple fact that some of the major instructors now incorporate some kind of aiming systems into their program speaks volumes of the systems that have already been developed.

That being said, criicizing these system isn't to the spirit of these message boards. They aren't some imagined hypnotics. If they can help (and they can help anyone), they should be embraced. If a player finds no use in them, then they should be ignored. But, I've never met anyone who's put any time with any of these systems that haven't benefit from them.

If one of these systems can help one of your trouble shots, it would be worth learning, wouldn't it?

Fred

mybreak
05-17-2006, 12:01 PM
Damn Fred, you're my idol. YOU ARE GOOD with the words and explanations. But even more, you have Saintly patience to type that all out for people that really DON'T want to learn, could care less, and only want to debate, argue, or discredit what you're saying.

I can't even imagine how the piranhas would have been on MY back if I just posted what you did. LMAO
I won't take away from your thunder, I promise to stay outta this thread.

Yeah, I'm funnin' with them, but I don't think some of THEM are having too much fun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

OKAY Troops, FO-WARRRRRDD HOOOOOOOOOO!

bsmutz
05-17-2006, 01:01 PM
Nice post, Fred. When I read the super thread about Hal Houle's system(s), most of the frustration seemed to me to come from the lack of useful information being presented. People want to know how to apply the specifics of these different aiming systems without paying for them and seemed to be constantly badgering people who claimed to be in the know to spill their guts. Another big difference in opinion was between those who claimed that a small number of aiming points were all that was required to make any ball and those that felt it took more to cover all scenarios. I really did not get the feeling that most posters felt that aiming systems in general were unnecessary or that they were not worth learning. On the contrary, I felt that most wanted to learn more about all of the different systems presented. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of pool players have never been exposed to an aiming system perse. I think that what most people want is a free place they could go on the web that would show all of the systems and how to apply them. I read most of the thread myself hoping that something that I could use to help aim (increase consistency) would be presented. Indeed, some useful information was presented and I have that information available to me to use if I choose to (along with tons of other information learned from various sites on the web).
I doubt seriously that anyone will attack Fred for his post. I did not post anything on the Hal Houle thread as I really didn't have any information to add. I am not a pro nor do I aspire to be one. In the end, all I want from pool is the enjoyment I get from playing the game. I can enjoy playing with or without an aiming system.
The only reason I posted to mybreak's thread was because of his superior attitude and put downs to other people who did not deserve it. I have to assume (since he hasn't denied it) that mybreak is the same person that posted as DriverMaker on AZB. Again, the only reason I posted to his threads over there was because of his superior attitude and his constant attacking of anyone who didn't agree with his opinions (mostly of his own superiority). I come here to have fun, learn some stuff, and share experiences. It hurts me and everybody here when posters like mybreak feel they have to be as malicious as possible with their posts. It's no wonder they end up getting banned. You would think that someone who claims to be so intelligent would be able to figure that out when it is so blatantly pointed out to them.

Bob_Jewett
05-17-2006, 03:54 PM
> As normal, there are a lot of answers in the posts without
> understanding much about the relational aiming.

Here's a basic question: What do you mean by "relational aiming?"
I don't recall having heard this term before.

> Q. What about aiming with english?
> A. The beauty of shooting with some of these systems is that
> the translation to using english (with a normal shaft) is easy
> and goes hand in hand. I've never seen a good relation with
> shooting with english and the ghost ball method other than
> "feeling."

My belief is that there is no system for aiming with english that doesn't involve feel. Recent discoveries have only strengthened my belief.

> Q. Why don't people teach this stuff?

I agree that people still ask that question, but only those who don't have a clue about what instructional material is available, in books and on-line. There are at least five recent books that have major sections on aiming systems or are mostly about aiming systems.

> They aren't some imagined hypnotics. If they can help (and they can help
> anyone), they should be embraced. If a player finds no use in them, then
> they should be ignored. But, I've never met anyone who's put any time
> with any of these systems that haven't benefit from them.
>
> If one of these systems can help one of your trouble shots, it would
> be worth learning, wouldn't it?

No. Here's a suppose.... You see an APA 4 in the pool hall. He has been that SL for 5 years. He has the most amazing chicken wing stance giving him a horrible left-to-right swerve in his stroke. He also has a major problem with having unintended left english on soft shots and right english on hard shots. He's practicing hard at long straight-ins trying to fix that but is getting nowhere.

You suspect that if you could get him to move his forearm to vertical, he might be able to hit the cue ball where he intended, but just as you are about to give some unsolicited advice, his team captain comes up and suggests that he move his feet so that the back one points in the direction of the shot. He does this and shoots a few shots with medium speed and puts the ball in the middle of the pocket with no side spin. He's a happy camper. He also now stands pigeon-toed to match his chicken-wing.

Has the captain's suggestion helped him?

dr_dave
05-17-2006, 04:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Nice post, Fred. When I read the super thread about Hal Houle's system(s), most of the frustration seemed to me to come from the lack of useful information being presented. People want to know how to apply the specifics of these different aiming systems without paying for them and seemed to be constantly badgering people who claimed to be in the know to spill their guts. Another big difference in opinion was between those who claimed that a small number of aiming points were all that was required to make any ball and those that felt it took more to cover all scenarios. I really did not get the feeling that most posters felt that aiming systems in general were unnecessary or that they were not worth learning. On the contrary, I felt that most wanted to learn more about all of the different systems presented. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of pool players have never been exposed to an aiming system perse. I think that what most people want is a free place they could go on the web that would show all of the systems and how to apply them. I read most of the thread myself hoping that something that I could use to help aim (increase consistency) would be presented. Indeed, some useful information was presented and I have that information available to me to use if I choose to (along with tons of other information learned from various sites on the web).
I doubt seriously that anyone will attack Fred for his post. I did not post anything on the Hal Houle thread as I really didn't have any information to add. I am not a pro nor do I aspire to be one. In the end, all I want from pool is the enjoyment I get from playing the game. I can enjoy playing with or without an aiming system.
The only reason I posted to mybreak's thread was because of his superior attitude and put downs to other people who did not deserve it. I have to assume (since he hasn't denied it) that mybreak is the same person that posted as DriverMaker on AZB. Again, the only reason I posted to his threads over there was because of his superior attitude and his constant attacking of anyone who didn't agree with his opinions (mostly of his own superiority). I come here to have fun, learn some stuff, and share experiences. It hurts me and everybody here when posters like mybreak feel they have to be as malicious as possible with their posts. It's no wonder they end up getting banned. You would think that someone who claims to be so intelligent would be able to figure that out when it is so blatanly pointed out to them. <hr /></blockquote>

Excellent posts (Fred, Bob, mybreak, and bsmutz). Hopefully, civility and insight sharing has returned to our great forum.

Regards,
Dave

wolfdancer
05-17-2006, 04:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Has the captain's suggestion helped him? <hr /></blockquote>
Yes!....it has, and it hasn't. He has compensated for one alignment/stroke error, by adding another. He might show a temporary improvement, until his old error, again takes over.
Years ago, a guy wanted me to aim further left to compensate for my slice.....which is what he did....fortunately I found a PGA certified pro, that cut a hook face in my new club......ruined the club, and after awhile my slice returned.
I never thought to point my back foot at the shot though.....might of saved me from buying a new driver

heater451
05-17-2006, 04:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>. . .Q. How many fixed points are we talking about?
A. In what some will call the two angle system, there are actually more than two angles. There are seven fixed points, including center to center, the two angles per side, and then half-ball aims per side. You can easily see the refinement to add another reference point per side, to make a nine fixed point system. I suppose an 11 point system is doable, but that would probably be as far as anyone would consider going. . . .<hr /></blockquote>Do you think that some of the necessity for more points is negated, by the tendency of the relationship of the cue ball-to-object ball to fall within certain groups? That is, if one were to set up the two balls, and then imagine the points necessary to hit anywhere (pocket or cushion), then you could say that "infinite" points exist. However, since the cut angle needed for most shots falls within the prescribed areas, only the few points are required. (I know this probably seems elementary, but I've spent some time trying to work out some angles, based on the 1/2-ball hit, and random shot set-ups, but I put it down awhile ago, and this takes me back to it.)

Furthermore, I think that the margin of error allowed in all shots--mainly dependent on object ball-to-pocket relationship, brings the need for an exact shot down a little more.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>. . .Q. What other types of aiming are there other than ghost ball and contact points?
A. Ferrule aiming, spots on the wall, the light system, shadow aiming, as well as "geometric aiming" like double the distance.<hr /></blockquote>By "double the distance", are you meaning the same as "equal distance"?



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

Bob_Jewett
05-17-2006, 05:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> ... However, since the cut angle needed for most shots falls within the prescribed areas, only the few points are required. ... <hr /></blockquote>
It's interesting to look at the margin of error in a geometrical system. It is easy to show that in a geometrical system, you have to arrive at dozens or hundreds of different angles if you want to pocket your shots reliably. Seven will not do it. I think Fred is not talking about a geometrical system.

Here's an example of how many shots a geometrical system requires. Put a ball on the spot. Put the cue ball along a line between the spot and a head pocket. This happens to be on the line for a half-ball spot shot. Move the cue ball along that line so that it is the same distance from the object ball as the object ball is from the pocket. Shooting a half ball shot will put the object ball in the middle of the corner pocket.

Now, move the cue ball one ball diameter to the left or right of the line of the cue ball's path. If you shoot a half-ball shot from the new cue ball location GEOMETRICALLY, you will miss the shot, because the landing spot of the object ball at the pocket will move by the same ball diameter, and there is no corner pocket that wide. (It moves the same distance to the side because the two distances are equal and the cut angle is fixed at 30 degrees.)

Now, imagine a circle of cue balls all the same distance from the object ball, and that gives you some idea of the number of different angles that a geometric system requires.

I think that any aiming system worth studying has to put the object ball near the center of the pocket. You can't afford to have a bias to one side or the other or it will significantly decrease your pocketing percentages.

heater451
05-18-2006, 03:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> . . .Now, move the cue ball one ball diameter to the left or right of the line of the cue ball's path. If you shoot a half-ball shot from the new cue ball location GEOMETRICALLY, you will miss the shot, because the landing spot of the object ball at the pocket will move by the same ball diameter, and there is no corner pocket that wide. (It moves the same distance to the side because the two distances are equal and the cut angle is fixed at 30 degrees.)<hr /></blockquote>Bob, that's basically what I alluded to, when I mentioned having and "infinite" number of contact points, for and "infinite" number of places to put the ball--be it the cushion or pocket.

What I mean by many/most shots falling into "prescribed" areas, is that, although your layout above will cause a shot to miss, if cut from anywhere but the allowable margin of error for that shot, you may now have another shot, which falls within the prescribed, points of contact relationship needed, to pot the ball. (Sorry, for the long sentence.)

For example, if you start with the corner shot that you describe, but then move the cue ball to the left, say, 3 to 4 inches, you may now have a shot on the side, which is makeable with one of the 7 contact points that Fred mentioned.

When I speak of the "margin of error", I usually am talking about the arc of contact points, along the equator of the object ball, which will still allow the ball to be potted. In general, the closer a ball is to a pocket, the longer the arc will be.


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

Cornerman
05-19-2006, 07:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>.

Here's a basic question: What do you mean by "relational aiming?"
I don't recall having heard this term before.<hr /></blockquote> Breaking the aiming into fractions of the balls. Fractional aiming is sort of the same, but in many of the "relational aiming" methods, there is a cueball point and an object ball point that you would use, and mostly, these points are fractions. So, it's a relation between the cueball and the object ball.

[ QUOTE ]
&gt; Q. What about aiming with english?
&gt; A. The beauty of shooting with some of these systems is that
&gt; the translation to using english (with a normal shaft) is easy
&gt; and goes hand in hand. I've never seen a good relation with
&gt; shooting with english and the ghost ball method other than
&gt; "feeling."

My belief is that there is no system for aiming with english that doesn't involve feel. Recent discoveries have only strengthened my belief.<hr /></blockquote> I think you're right if you are to include all of the ranges of speeds and elevation. But, if with these simple systems, I think permananent improvement can be achieved on a large range of english speeds.

[ QUOTE ]
&gt; If one of these systems can help one of your trouble shots, it would
&gt; be worth learning, wouldn't it?

No. Here's a suppose.... You see an APA 4 in the pool hall. He has been that SL for 5 years. He has the most amazing chicken wing stance giving him a horrible left-to-right swerve in his stroke. ... He also now stands pigeon-toed to match his chicken-wing.

Has the captain's suggestion helped him? <hr /></blockquote> Bob, this type of analogy only furthers to cloud and confuses what could be any benefit. You're blatantly saying that improvement on a trouble shot is not worth learning. I really hope posters take a long hard look at the implication of this.

Do you ever wonder why people have a chicken wing? I know why I do, and I'm not telling you.

Fred &lt;~~~ the great Don Mattingly was one example of a batter who added a pigeon toed stance to improve his swing.

Cornerman
05-19-2006, 08:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> ... However, since the cut angle needed for most shots falls within the prescribed areas, only the few points are required. ... <hr /></blockquote>
It's interesting to look at the margin of error in a geometrical system. It is easy to show that in a geometrical system, you have to arrive at dozens or hundreds of different angles if you want to pocket your shots reliably. Seven will not do it. I think Fred is not talking about a geometrical system.
<hr /></blockquote>It will always be hard for me to discuss this since you and I will be attacking it from different viewpoints.

You can see the margin error with a geometric system. That is, here's the geometric line, and here's the margin of error that you have or don't have.

I guess in a small respect, the relational aiming is taking advantage of the fact that there is a margin of error on most shots, and works backwards from there.

Though the geometric line is correct, it's difficult to evaluate (with friction and all), see, and hit. THe relational aiming systems attempts to lessen the burden of the evaluation, and seeing of the shot.

Relational aiming is no more of a leap of faith as geometric aiming, given the difficulties of seeing the geometrically correct point.

Fred