[BC21]

Originally Posted by Vorpal Cue

Which of my remarks about the system is untrue....

....it's only accurate for shots less than 4 feet because the system is so coarse (1/8 ball) and the originator doesn't use it.

This statement, quoted above, is untrue.

The book teaches/shows aiming lines to the nearest 1/8 hit, and shots that are farther than about 4ft from the pocket could easily fall between the cracks, meaning, for example, it could require an aim point between say a 5/8 ball hit and a 1/2 ball hit. But it's obvious when looking at the numbers. You know without a doubt that the shot you're facing is a little thinner than a 5/8 or whatever, but not a whole 1/8 of a ball thinner. You know this because the system shows you, not because you're guessing. The system easily allows you to know when a shot is a little thinner or a little thicker than the nearest 1/8 of a ball aim. And the book specifically states that once the ob is more than about 4 feet from the pocket, the player may occasionally need to tune the aim, either a touch thinner or thicker than the nearest 1/8 aim point. This is where players begin to develop a great feel for cut shots. Start of by learning 1/4 and 1/8 ball aim lines, and once you're recognizing these shots with ease you will also recognize when one shot or another falls in between.

And you are 100% wrong about me not using the system. I use it on certain shots everytime I play. I didn't learn the game using fractional aiming or some difficult triangle visuals or whatever. So I don't use such systems on every shot, other than whatever system I learned with years ago... either ghostball or contact points or guesswork or what have you....it's rote. Having said that, I honestly wish I had started with a no-guesswork system like Poolology, but I didn't. And I don't use it as often as I should now because I usually don't feel like I need to use it that often. When I'm missing balls like crazy, it's due to lack of focus, laziness, not lack of knowing where the cb needs to be. Even on bad days using a great system on every shot may or may not provide good results, because if you're mind is somewhere else, zero focus, and your stroke just feels off, nothing much can help.

[AimPro Billiards]

I think many good points have been made. I have a slightly different perspective; or perhaps I should say I describe it differently.

In the abstract, I think a player with perfect mechanics could figure out aiming quickly. But the problem is, of course, that no one has perfect mechanics and beginners and low-skill players are trying to work it all out and there are too many variables and they get confused.

Therefore, I think a developing player needs a way to know exactly how to aim a shot and then work to perfect their mechanics. My theory is that 1) cut shots at different speeds/vertical spins induce/reveal many stroke flaws not seen on straight in shots at one speed and spin 2) if you miss with an exact, known aim, it MUST be flawed mechanics (includes preshot routine) and one can focus attention on diagnosing and fixing the flaw(s). As their mechanics improve, they can learn ever more subtle variations in aim (training their 'eyes') [start with 1/2 ball hit; add in quarters; then add in eighth ball hit angles; then add in sixteenth ball hits and potentially even 32'nds].

So, I developed the AimRight to help ME because shooting straight in shots endlessly was proven unsuccessful in improving my mechanics (and didn't help my aiming at all). It definitely has helped me with my mechanics (unlike lessons from many instructors or watching videos or reading books or using stroke trainers) and aiming, including combo shots & banks and position play. I made this a product (and made ad-free videos) so I could share this with the pool community and with no expectation of making a profit. Note: the User Guide includes lots of tabulated data on throw compensation and position play at 16 cut angles. [Dr. Dave was instrumental in my computing this data; thanks again, Dr Dave. I am not saying he's endorsing the product, just that he graciously helped me.]

And to be completely clear, AimRight-trained players can use ANY aiming method (or none) -- including your favorite -- when playing.

[BC21]

Originally Posted by AimPro Billiards

.......

In the abstract, I think a player with perfect mechanics could figure out aiming quickly. But the problem is, of course, that no one has perfect mechanics and beginners and low-skill players are trying to work it all out and there are too many variables and they get confused.

Therefore, I think a developing player needs a way to know exactly how to aim a shot and then work to perfect their mechanics. My theory is that 1) cut shots at different speeds/vertical spins induce/reveal many stroke flaws not seen on straight in shots at one speed and spin 2) if you miss with an exact, known aim, it MUST be flawed mechanics (includes preshot routine) and one can focus attention on diagnosing and fixing the flaw(s). As their mechanics improve, they can learn ever more subtle variations in aim (training their 'eyes') [start with 1/2 ball hit; add in quarters; then add in eighth ball hit angles; then add in sixteenth ball hits and potentially even 32'nds].

......

I agree with this theory. If a developing player misses shots that have known aim lines, not guesstimated aim lines or "I think this looks/feels right" aim lines, then there's no doubt the miss was due to a faulty cue delivery (stroke flaws) or a poor psr/alignment.

Developing/new players traditionally work on aiming at the same time they're working on stroke and other fundamentals. Once those fundamentals become consistent, the player finally begins to build good aiming skills because they are able to deliver the cue more consistently, which in turn provides more reliable feedback on the trial and error process of learning how to aim the shots. But if you already know exactly where to aim without using trial and error or guesswork, you're a step ahead of the curve. Every missed shot will then provide feedback on stroke mechanics/alignment. The only trial and error involved will be geared strictly to ironing out those mechanics.

[AimPro Billiards]

Originally Posted by BC21

I agree with this theory. If a developing player misses shots that have known aim lines, not guesstimated aim lines or "I think this looks/feels right" aim lines, then there's no doubt the miss was due to a faulty cue delivery (stroke flaws) or a poor psr/alignment.

Developing/new players traditionally work on aiming at the same time they're working on stroke and other fundamentals. Once those fundamentals become consistent, the player finally begins to build good aiming skills because they are able to deliver the cue more consistently, which in turn provides more reliable feedback on the trial and error process of learning how to aim the shots. But if you already know exactly where to aim without using trial and error or guesswork, you're a step ahead of the curve. Every missed shot will then provide feedback on stroke mechanics/alignment. The only trial and error involved will be geared strictly to ironing out those mechanics.

You and I are in complete agreement on this.

[BC21]

Originally Posted by AimPro Billiards

You and I are in complete agreement on this.

Excellent! That makes two of us, probably the only two! Lol

Fact is, most instructors teach ghostball or contact point aiming to new students. They know the stroke is undeveloped, so the basic fundamentals get the primary attention. Aiming is secondary, a byproduct of stroke development. Once the player can deliver the cue with consistency, the trial and error of estimating ghostballs and contact points provides more useful feedback, which in turn trains the brain to aim. There's nothing wrong with this method. People have been doing it centuries, and it works. I'm sure that's how most of us learned to play the game.

But with your theory (and mine as well), using shots with 100% known aim lines could enable a player to developing a consistent stroke much quicker. And at the same time their brain is getting a lot of aiming repetition, building a great database of shots.

I did an experiment years ago where I had my wife (who had a no stroke fundamentals whatsoever) shoot a series of shots based on where she thought it looked like the ghostball center would be, 1.125" from the ob. I kept the cb within a foot of the ob to decrease the effects of stroke flaws. She missed about 80% to 90% of the shots. Then I set up a different set of shots that happened to be the same shot angles as the first series, but in a different place on the table so they looked like completely different shots. With this series I should her exactly where to aim her cue, like "aim it through the middle of the cb to the outer edge of the ob", and I pointed there to make sure she understood. I think there were 3 fractional aim lines I used on the shots. She was able to pocket more than 70% or so of those shots. Then the last series was back to guessing or estimating that 1.125" for ghostball. She did horrible again.

This proved to me that knowing where to aim is a great piece of information that can really help a player develop a consistent stroke in a much shorter timeframe than guessing where to aim. Of course, if I had set the shots up with 3ft between cb and ob, she would've done poorly either way. But by knowing the aim line, not guesstimating it, the feedback on missed and pocketed shots could be solely attributed to cue delivery/stroke mechanics. And as far as aiming development, she would be building shot recognition (cb-ob relationships) from the start.

[AimPro Billiards]

Originally Posted by BC21

Excellent! That makes two of us, probably the only two! Lol
.

More than the two of us. Besides our customers (thank you), Matt Sherman (Billiards author/teacher - https://twitter.com/aboutbilliards?lang=en) has given support to me; Tor Lowry (https://www.zerox-billiards.com/) has also been encouraging; and Steve Sherman (https://billiardproductreviews.com/) is a fan. Rick Matzke
General Manager of Seybert's Billiard Supply (https://www.seyberts.com/) & PBIA Instructor believes in my product enough to carry it from the beginning. Thanks to all of you.

I must say, though, that my product calls for disciplined practice -- like a musician doing scales. Not many are up to that; I understand. And it takes keen self-observation to identify the what and why of stroke flaws or an experienced instructor with a knowing eye. I'm still looking for such an instructor who does remote training who can help my customers for when they get stuck.