PDA

View Full Version : Aiming ........A Pro's view



07-25-2002, 04:35 AM
Over the past few weeks theres been a lot said for aiming techniques and theorys on this board. I enjoy reading other peoples posts on their own different systems and admit i've tried some and find that not all work for the same person. I would like to hear from any pro's what kind of aiming technique they use. I know there's no system that is the be all and end all to aiming but one that will give a solid foundation to take some of the guess work out of it. Also someone wrote in to BD magazine regarding a video called "The Missing Link The Ultimate Aiming System". Can anyone shed some light on this tape?

Patrick
07-25-2002, 04:57 AM
Aiming systems are for stupid people who don't understand the physics of the game. You need to know what happens to the balls, to know exactly how the balls rotate with different spins and what happens with the rails; you will need over 150 IQ. Only one in a thousand physical human beings on planet earth have that, this is why aiming systems are created. Same as formulas in math, or calculators.
For more difficult games like Rotation Straight Pool, the one with the highest intelligence has more advantage, unlike 9-ball. 180+ IQ for Rotation Straight Pool is required. One rail kick shots should be 100%, the position play is the hardest, not pocketing balls, for this you will need good speed control. Over 100 different speeds, pros have about 50-60 different speeds.

I invented Rotation Straight Pool, you can read about it on <a target="_blank" href=http://vp3.0catch.com>my site</a>, I can give lessons too, but I rather don't, because the secrets are far too valuable to reveal to the general public.

Patrick

07-25-2002, 05:12 AM
are you implying there's some pros out there with 150+ or 180+ IQ???

PLEASE!!:)

Patrick
07-25-2002, 06:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: arnie:</font><hr> are you implying there's some pros out there with 150+ or 180+ IQ???

PLEASE!!:) <hr></blockquote>Not pool players, otherwise they would be much better. Maybe Stephen Hendry has high intelligence. He plays like me. But snooker is a simple game, you only need vertical axis spin. When you combine vertical and horizontal spin you will require much higher intelligence to calculate it.

Patrick

bluewolf
07-25-2002, 06:47 AM
LMAO This is really funny. I think aiming methods are for people with left brains who cant think outside the box.As far as intelligence goes, who can define what that is. How can one measure something they cannot define. There are so many aspects of intelligence, with many more to be revealed IQ numbers mean nothing.

I once knew a man who would not score high on any IQ test but he was an excellent pool player. He played by feel and intuition so it was easy for him.

07-25-2002, 07:28 AM
Jason, one of the problems in developing your game in the early-intermediate stages is that you have to work on a lot of different things at the same time. Did you miss a particular shot because you aimed wrong or because you moved your bridge hand during your stroke, or because you picked up your head, or because you twisted your back hand, or because you lunged into the shot, pushing yourself off-line?

My experience is that your aiming techinques will change as your game develops. You may find a system that works for you right now, but as you develop your arm swing or work on your alignment or any other aspect of your mechanics, you'll find that particular system may no longer work for you.

For ball pocketing, the pros mainly use visualization. They see the shot being executed in their mind just prior to shooting. There's really nothing much more to it than that. But they have consistent fundamentals so they can trust their visualization.

Pros often use systems for banking, kicking and applying side spin, however their systems are geared towards their individual style of play.

I feel the opposite of Patrick in this instance. I think aiming systems are for advanced players who can trust their consistent fundamentals, and that players who try to use systems who have many variations in their games will only find themselves more frustrated.

The only way to figure out how to aim is to just keep plugging away at your game; work on all aspects of your fundamentals and trust that the process will work for you over time.

Fran

=k=
07-25-2002, 07:38 AM
fran i don't know if you helped jason or not but i can relate to what you said.. "" still trying to run before i can crawl""

07-25-2002, 07:38 AM

Ryan
07-25-2002, 08:01 AM
I know exactly what you mean about IQ having absolutely nothing to do with the ability to pocket balls. At the pool hall I frequent, there is a guy in his mid-fifties that is a very nice individual, but is hardly the "brightest bulb in the box". He works a low-skill job for cash and spends most of if on beer after he gets off of work. This guy would have a tough time figuring out "2 + 2", but he can shoot pool with the best in the house.

He only shoots with a house cue (and no, it's not a "sneaky pete" either), and he shoots simply by rote. He's one of those guys that has probably been shooting ever since he was old enough to see over the table, and makes almost any shot without hesitation. He doesn't think about what he is doing, he just does it.

Watching this guy really makes you think about all of the "clutter" we put into our game. I guarantee that he has never read a single book or watched a video on how to improve your game, and he is probably better off as a result. He doesn't worry about his stance or how he grips his cue, he just lines up and shoots the shot.

We should all hope to be so free in our game.

Lester
07-25-2002, 08:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ryan:</font><hr> I know exactly what you mean about IQ having absolutely nothing to do with the ability to pocket balls. At the pool hall I frequent, there is a guy in his mid-fifties that is a very nice individual, but is hardly the "brightest bulb in the box". He works a low-skill job for cash and spends most of if on beer after he gets off of work. This guy would have a tough time figuring out "2 + 2", but he can shoot pool with the best in the house.

He only shoots with a house cue (and no, it's not a "sneaky pete" either), and he shoots simply by rote. He's one of those guys that has probably been shooting ever since he was old enough to see over the table, and makes almost any shot without hesitation. He doesn't think about what he is doing, he just does it.

Watching this guy really makes you think about all of the "clutter" we put into our game. I guarantee that he has never read a single book or watched a video on how to improve your game, and he is probably better off as a result. He doesn't worry about his stance or how he grips his cue, he just lines up and shoots the shot.

We should all hope to be so free in our game. <hr></blockquote>

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Ryan, I have this conversation at the PH all the time. Some of these really good players are like "idiot-savants". I even do my rainman impression "I'm an excellent player, I run racks." But when they are shooting, they are 110 percent focused on the task at hand, when they are not - they can't string two intelligent sentences together. If they can shoot that good, it does make you think you're complicating the process. ***Lester***

phil in sofla
07-25-2002, 02:17 PM
What I had posted a while back was at least one professional's system, namely CJ Wiley, unless he was just claiming to use that system on his tape. Evidently, according to Hal Houle, that same system or something very close was what at least some of the legends of yesteryear used as well.

One of Jimmy Reid's videos explains his system for aiming, which is to find equal and opposite overlapping points, the contact points on the object ball and the cue ball, and aim for those to meet. This is what I used prior to trying the other method above. He mentions it in the context of using a larger bar box cue ball, and how to make that adjustment to aim that it requires.

As to that video, it might very well be the accompanying piece to the 'complete professional aiming system' pamphlet I just got from DPM (those are his initials, and part of the title of the pamphlet, forget his name just now). That is based on identifying 8ths of the ball as aim point lines, and is somewhat similar to the Wiley/Houle advised method, with the difference that the W/H system doesn't require you to 'see' or aim to many different points on the cue ball, but just to one or the other of the edge or the center (using fractions on the cue ball instead of any fractions on the object ball).

That DPM system is quite elaborate, including specialty numbering of the rail diamonds in such a way that any cut shot can tell you a calculated fraction of the object ball to hit to make the shot. (Too complicated for me to do more than look at it, right now. Maybe later I'll work with it to see what I think).

Now, CJ implies that when using his system, you do go on feel at the end. He says once you get the line (standing up), you rely on placing your cue stick on that line in your stance setup, and then rely on good mechanics (no longer aiming at anything on the object ball or cue ball) to go down that line. Several times he says you are using a kind of optical illusion to your benefit. (I don't do that, instead keeping the ball fraction line in my peripheral vision throughout the shot).

Whereas you might think someone with a lot of experience might forego any system and use feel exclusively, you'll find many of the old cagey veteran (pool) golf players, one pocket players, and 3-C players using many systems, including vanishing point marks on the wall, etc.

As to whether understanding the physics of pool would make you a great player, as Patrick claims, I rather doubt it. Corialus, who wrote the book on it, literally (completely describing masse actions, etc., back in the 1700s or 1800s), was no great player that I've heard of. Whatever you understand, you still have to be able to execute it in a reliable and consistent fashion. So I agree completely that without reliable mechanics of stroke, the use of any system is likely to be an exercise in futility.

Chris Cass
07-25-2002, 02:53 PM
Well said Fran, your the only pro who was kind enough and cared enough to post.

C.C.

phil in sofla
07-25-2002, 03:03 PM
I believe DPM stands for Dale Paul Martineau.

SPetty
07-25-2002, 04:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: phil in sofla:</font><hr> As to that video, it might very well be the accompanying piece to the 'complete professional aiming system' pamphlet I just got from DPM (those are his initials, and part of the title of the pamphlet, forget his name just now). <hr></blockquote>Hi Phil,

Where can I get that pamphlet? Sounds real interesting...

bluewolf
07-26-2002, 07:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Patrick:</font><hr> Aiming systems are for stupid people who don't understand the physics of the game. You need to know what happens to the balls, to know exactly how the balls rotate with different spins and what happens with the rails; you will need over 150 IQ. Only one in a thousand physical human beings on planet earth have that, this is why aiming systems are created. Patrick <hr></blockquote>

Since giving iq tests is what i do, and the statistics of different scores are in the manuals, i think you have your statistics off

&gt;70 2% mentally deficient
71-89 14% low average (below average and borderline)
90-109 68% average
110-119 8% high average(above average)
120+ 5% superior
130-144 2% very superior (intellectually gifted)
145+ 1% genius level

these stats are based on one hundred not one thousand. if 145+ is standing in a room of one hundred people, that person will have the highest IQ. if that same person is standing in a room of 1000 people, he or she will be in the top 10.

but you are too hung up on the numbers man. IQ tests do not test all aspects of intelligence. there are thousands of aspects of intelligence and most tests test 10-20 of these factors.i have tested kids who i knew were gifted if not genius but the type of intelligence they had was not on any iq test. also iq tests do the poorest job at the lower and the higher ends.once a person hits 130, there are just not enough questions to test all that they are capable of.i know when i took an iq test, i topped off in many areas(perfect scores on those sections) so without harder questions in those areas, it is impossible to pin it down to a number.

also, a person with a mathamatical mind/physics will score highest on an 1q test weighted in spatial reasoning and sequential processing. a person who is good at abstract concepts will do best on an iq test which is weighted towards thinking abstractly. a person with an excellent memory with do best on a test recall of facts and knowlege.

they are all biased one way or another, my friend. iq scores are meaningless.

how do you put a number on an einstein, who did not speak before the age of 5 and had a learning disability in reading,yet was an obvious mathematical genius. to put a score on one such as that is nothing short of extrapolation and meaningless.

it is best to measure a person by their deeds,wit, accomplishments,creativity. to quote a quip

'your walk talks so loud i cant hear your talk walk'

Bluewolf

phil in sofla
07-26-2002, 03:22 PM
This was in a little newspaper put out for free in some of the local phs, called Professor Cueball, or something like that. If I don't have the original paper, I'll look at the booklet itself for the guy's ordering address. Manana.

phil in sofla
07-26-2002, 03:38 PM
Agree with all you wrote, except Einstein wasn't obviously a mathematical genius. Physics genius, sure. But all the math he used had been laid out in full detail some multiple decades earlier by Reimann and Ricci, in their work on tensor calculus on multidimensional manifolds.

From the math side, Einstein had about the same handle on it as a talented math grad student might have had, which is a good handle, certainly, but not at a genius level, as when Newton had to invent the calculus originally to do his physics work on gravity.

Generally, nowadays, physics suffers from the physicists not knowing enough math, and having that 20 to 40 year lag before one of them finally applies an advanced mathematics topic to a new physics model. String/Super String theories now, as part of the GUT (grand unified theory), are a current example.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Only a BS in math, but not my only BS area!! And loves math's 'greatest hits'

SPetty
07-27-2002, 06:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: phil in sofla:</font><hr> This was in a little newspaper put out for free in some of the local phs, called Professor Cueball, or something like that. If I don't have the original paper, I'll look at the booklet itself for the guy's ordering address. Manana. <hr></blockquote>Thanks, Phil. Don't forget me!

Patrick
07-27-2002, 10:38 AM
Paul Cooijmans has created many high ceiling tests, you can see them here: http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/glia.htm/iq_percentile.htm (http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/Test_EFG.htm>http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/Test_EFG.htm</a>
They)
137.5 IQ is 99.0 %ile, one in a hundred.
149.5 IQ is 99.9 %ile, one in a thousand.
159 is one in ten thousand.
168 is one in hundred thousand.
176 is one in a million.
183 is one in ten million.
190 is one in a hundred million.
196 is one in a billion.
202 is one in ten billion.
207 is one in a hundred billion.
212 is one in a trillion (My society)

I have done this test last two days:
<a target="_blank" href=http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/sth.htm>http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/sth.htm</a>
It is spatial and I knew 27 of 28 questions, and I don't know anything about math and physics. If they all are right then I have 200 IQ, if I discover the last question, I have 207 and I am the smartest ever lived. If some of my answers are wrong, then it is a stupid test, how can I know if the creator thinks of a different answer? In some questions there are different answers possible that you can give.
Nobody has had over 22 correct answers, maybe this is why.

I did the Daedalus test with ceiling of 196, 196 is required to enter Giga society, one in a billion. Then I had done that for 3 days and I was excited that I will join Giga when I finish the test, then someone else scored the maximum score, so the norms changed to 172 IQ if you get a maximum score.
What if this happens to Space, time and hyperspace test, I am scared to send the answers too early, and at the same time I want to send it as fast as possible so the other guy don't send it first.

Paul Cooijmans' tests cost $5 to submit and receive a score.
I will use the $5 bill I got from TomBrooklyn which he sent for my autograph.

Patrick

SPetty
07-27-2002, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Patrick:</font><hr> Paul Cooijmans has created many high ceiling tests, you can see them here: <a target="_blank" href=http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/Test_EFG.htm>http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/Test_EFG.htm</a>
They are real tests that cost $5, not bad self scoring online tests.<hr></blockquote>Hi Patrick,

You might want to be careful with this guy. This guy *sells* IQ points:

http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/glia.htm/boostiq.htm

Not too ethical, eh?

Patrick
07-27-2002, 05:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: SPetty:</font><hr>Hi Patrick,

You might want to be careful with this guy. This guy *sells* IQ points:

<a target="_blank" href=http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/glia.htm/boostiq.htm>http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/glia.htm/boostiq.htm</a>

Not too ethical, eh?
<hr></blockquote>You don't understand it is a joke??

Patrick

Patrick
07-29-2002, 06:50 AM
Here is an IQ scale converter: <a target="_blank" href=http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/js/iqonvert.htm>http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/js/iqonvert.htm</a>

The 16-scale (standard deviation = 16; high-range tests mostly use this one)
The Wechsler Scale (SD = 15)
The Cattell Scale (SD = 24; often used for the Raven test)
This means an IQ of 196 on Paul Cooijmans' tests is 244 on the Cattell scale.

Patrick

<font color=blue>"A very high intelligence, a very good body, and natural spiritual abilities all combined makes me the most powerful human that ever lived."</font color=blue>

bluewolf
07-29-2002, 08:32 AM
. have 207 and I am the smartest ever lived. If some of my answers are wrong, then it is a stupid test, how can I know if the creator thinks of a different answer? In some questions there are different answers possible that you can give.
Nobody has had over 22 correct answers, maybe this is why.

Perzactly, Patrick. If you know you are intelligent but dont score high on it, it is indeed a dumb test.

bluewolf

bluewolf
07-29-2002, 08:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Patrick:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: SPetty:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;Hi Patrick,

You might want to be careful with this guy. This guy *sells* IQ points:


Not too ethical, eh?
&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;You don't understand it is a joke??

Patrick <hr></blockquote>

Thanks for pointing that out to us patrick. I think that the only way we will know when you are kidding is if you tell us. A &lt;g&gt; or lol is often helpful.

bluewolf

07-29-2002, 08:50 AM
Patrick, your fingers are typing but all that's comeing out is "blah, blah, blah". So Hendry plays like you?, Snooker is easy? It takes much higher intelligence to calculate verticle, and horizontal spin??

Well i hate to burst your supreme being bubble there skippy but all it takes is trial, error, feel and memory to learn what spins do...ANY spins. So put the "calculator" down Bozo and hit some balls. Then you might know what your talking about. St

Patrick
07-29-2002, 08:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: bluewolf:</font><hr>
Thanks for pointing that out to us patrick. I think that the only way we will know when you are kidding is if you tell us. A &lt;g&gt; or lol is often helpful.

bluewolf <hr></blockquote>It wasn't my joke, it was Paul Cooijmans' joke.

Patrick

<font color=blue>"A very high intelligence, a very good body, and natural spiritual abilities all combined makes me the most powerful human ever lived."</font color=blue>

Patrick
07-29-2002, 08:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Stretch:</font><hr>Patrick, your fingers are typing but all that's comeing out is "blah, blah, blah". So Hendry plays like you?, Snooker is easy? It takes much higher intelligence to calculate verticle, and horizontal spin??

Well i hate to burst your supreme being bubble there skippy but all it takes is trial, error, feel and memory to learn what spins do...ANY spins. So put the "calculator" down Bozo and hit some balls. Then you might know what your talking about. St <hr></blockquote>You can never get good if you use the primitive learning method. Good luck.

Patrick

<font color=purple>"A very high intelligence, a very good body, and natural spiritual abilities all combined makes me the most powerful human ever lived."</font color=purple>

phil in sofla
07-30-2002, 11:10 AM
I don't know about that. Rocky Balboa beat that Russian guy Drago by chopping wood and running in the snow.

I'll bet all the greats of the past used what you say are primitive methods. Did you mean that those methods don't work well NOW, or they wouldn't work now for STRETCH, or that those Hall of Famers who used those primitive methods weren't any good?

07-30-2002, 05:32 PM
Great blanket statement Pat. Shows your complete lack of teaching ability. I suppose your internet lessons are far more "advanced" and can "guarentee" champions.

I'll tell you what they'll guarantee. That you won't be physicaly harmed by gulible yet "primative" would be pool players when they discover your a total fraud. So sit back in your comfy computor chair and dream about being a "player". It's as close as your lily white a$$ will ever get to the real action without wetting itself. St

07-30-2002, 08:49 PM
Sorry Pat, sorry board. I could have made my point without the name calling. It was primative of me. St

Patrick
07-31-2002, 07:03 AM
The primitive method works if you want to play as bad as pros in pool.

Training for physical sports is different, you can build your body with primitive techniques and still reach the same level, your potential. But this takes longer.
You don't need a high intelligence to build muscles, there isn't much to calculate, only counting calories you eat per day, and design your own training program.
In pool a higher intelligence is an advantage, it not only makes you learn faster, but it also makes you reach a much higher level than if you were stupid. Up to a certain skill level intelligence wouldn't matter, but after that, intelligence is all that matters. This skill level is when you start playing with your intelligence rather than memory and experience.

Patrick

07-31-2002, 11:45 AM
Although I am not a pro, I do happen to know lots of them.

There are certainly, as you seem to already understand, many different methods of aiming. As others have mentioned, what matters is what gets the best results for you.

The point I would like to stress in the strongest possible terms is that aiming systems are NOT the end-all be-all method by which the best players in the world aim their shots. Aiming systems are used to get you "in the neighborhood", and the minute, precise, fraction-of-a-millimeter aiming comes from feel and instinct from pocketing the balls thousands upon thousands of times. This is especially true when having to compensate for the effects of defelction, swerve, and throw.

I would caution you against listening too much to those that would tell you that 100% of aiming is using an aiming system, and 0% is from experience.

bluewolf
07-31-2002, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Patrick:</font><hr> The primitive method works if you want to play as bad as pros in pool.

Training for physical sports is different, you can build your body with primitive techniques and still reach the same level, your potential. But this takes longer.
You don't need a high intelligence to build muscles, there isn't much to calculate, only counting calories you eat per day, and design your own training program.
In pool a higher intelligence is an advantage, it not only makes you learn faster, but it also makes you reach a much higher level than if you were stupid. Up to a certain skill level intelligence wouldn't matter, but after that, intelligence is all that matters. This skill level is when you start playing with your intelligence rather than memory and experience.

Patrick <hr></blockquote>

This makes some sense. If you have well rounded experience.But I have known people, engineers and such, who are predominately left brained.While pool is very much left brained, I think the best players also have some right brain activity.

bluewolf