Line of aim

[bluenose1940]

Hello folks,

I have been watching a Barry Stark video and I just cannot get my head round what he is saying. He is saying that he is not aiming at a specific point on the object ball, he is aiming along the line. I always pick a point on the object ball and then try to make sure that the cue ball will hit that spot.

I am a doddery old wrinkley and am struggling with this. Can someone explain this in a little more detail please. The main bit of this is around the 4 minute mark.

Thank you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs2X...&index=31&t=0s

[alabadi]

I've been struggling with this concept for years. what i understand is he means that when he is aiming he isn't aiming at a spot on the OB. he picks a point on the object ball while standing behind the cueball, and then visualizes the path the cueball would take to send the white to this point.so in effect he is choosing an imaginary line through the middle of the white. and this is the line you drop on to. now how you find this line is another question. in most cases its trial and error. by practicing over and over you get to remember from the angle of the shot where this line is.

[howardlax]

In my opinion, picking a contact point on object ball is the one of many ways to pick up that 'line' which many people here defined alignment with. However, I found most of times the line directly to contact point is not equivalent to the potting 'line' especially at thin cut(probably because of the intersect point is usually not the point you see on ob ?).
And envisioning a line of potting always gives your more margin to error. Once you are on correct line, even the aiming is slightly off the fine tuning doesn't require any movement which may throw you off the line.
That's why I think most of best play saying 'use your leg to pot the ball' as your first step in leg will determine your line and will have already put you in a potting position almost accurate.

[DeanH]

I think this is what is being described.
Excuse if I misuse any terminology
The direct line from cue ball to BOB is NOT the same as the line of aim required for the cue ball to contact the object ball necessary to pot the ball.

As you can appreciate, the difference between the blue and yellow line will become greater as the angle become wider (cue ball to the left); and less so as the angle lessens (cue ball to the right), the two lines of aim or the same ONLY when the line of shot is a straight line from cue ball to pocket

[trying]

Theres a aiming aid that can help with this

[howardlax]

I think this is what is being described.
Excuse if I misuse any terminology
The direct line from cue ball to BOB is NOT the same as the line of aim required for the cue ball to contact the object ball necessary to pot the ball.

As you can appreciate, the difference between the blue and yellow line will become greater as the angle become wider (cue ball to the left); and less so as the angle lessens (cue ball to the right), the two lines of aim or the same ONLY when the line of shot is a straight line from cue ball to pocket

Thanks Dean. Yes, Just like that !

[vmax]

I've been struggling with this concept for years. what i understand is he means that when he is aiming he isn't aiming at a spot on the OB. he picks a point on the object ball while standing behind the cueball, and then visualizes the path the cueball would take to send the white to this point.so in effect he is choosing an imaginary line through the middle of the white. and this is the line you drop on to. now how you find this line is another question. in most cases its trial and error. by practicing over and over you get to remember from the angle of the shot where this line is.

The line is not from the middle of the cue ball to the contact point on the object ball or to a point outside of the object ball altogether, the line is from the cue ball to the object ball. You should be looking from the cue ball to the object ball and aiming is done as if the line of aim is as wide as the cue ball not the tip of the cue.
Somewhere across that 2 & 1/16 inch wide line of aim is the contact point on the object ball, focus on that and address tip to centre cue ball and if you've gotten the butt on the line as well by the right feet placement and you cue straight............................

[ace man]

I'd say don't spend too much rational thinking about this guys. Aiming should be second nature even for us club guys who are playing let's say somewhat regularly.

[presprout]

You never miss a pot, despite being only a club player? Well done you.

Personally if I don't concentrate hard on technique and getting down to align my vision center, I miss far too many.

I have right eye dominance, and an left handed. If I don't concentrate on that alignment (which is not natural feeling), then I tend to bring my stance more central under my chin, and I will miss because of incorrect aim.

There are people for whom getting down 'naturally' without thinking, leads to correct alignment. This is not true for everyone.

The are loads of ways to miss a snooker shot. My combination of vision, stance, and concentration, definitely contributes to that, in a way that 'not consciously thinking about it' won't solve.

[ace man]

You never miss a pot, despite being only a club player? Well done you.

I rarely misjudge line of aim, provided angles are normal difficulty, nothing extreme. Just talking about routine shots. Misses come from either being too tight or moving slightly on delivery. I had this confirmed by a coach. Should have been clearer, cheers.

[presprout]

You are a very lucky person to be infallible on sighting and alignment, and to be able to execute it naturally without thought.

My point was that not everybody is you.

I'm not.

[ace man]

Most people are good at alignment. We had group coaching with Roger Leighton about a year ago.
Believe me when I tell you this, every player had the either the occasional "jab" problem, or shooting too hard. Not aiming, including guys who are well below 30 break standard.

I think there was only one player who did not address cueball on centre on long blue shots (he thought he was). That was the only anomaly I could see.
There were some shots were I swore I was still and delivering nicely...but the guy still said..."you're jabbing it again". We're talking very very slight jabs, hard to notice but enough to make the cue go offline.

If there is a player who strikes the ball really well, I mean consistently well, but despite this misses a lot of routine shots...I don't think I have ever seen anything like that in person.
Of course I have plenty of club mates who swear on this aiming stuff refusing to believe that their striking is sub par.

[Siz]

I don't believe that it is possible to cue well consistently if you are not sighting the ball well consistently. Your brain will not allow it.

When you are down on the shot, if what you see conflicts with what you are trying to achieve - and the discrepency can be very subtle - you will stop yourself from cueing perfectly. The result will be quitting on the shot, steering, head movement etc etc - ie the usual suspects that everyone identifies as cuing errors but which I belive have at their cause poor sighting at an earlier stage in the shot making process.

[presprout]

@aceman.

We are just fundamentally going to disagree over this. Not least because I believe I am that player. I play with century standard player. He believes that my shot selection, knowledge of the table, and cue ball control is better than his (with the exception of stun run throughs).

I will always toys in a miss that hands control to my opponent though. It can come at ten, twenty, or fifty (demeanor around the table doesn't change, I just toss one in), but it will come.

I know my vision will change over a session. I also know that at it's normal position it requires a relatively extreme stance to centre it.

But anyway, enough about me.

If even mediocre club players sight the ball perfectly every time, how come so many pros have improved their game with sightrite and other such aids?

[ace man]

If even mediocre club players sight the ball perfectly every time, how come so many pros have improved their game with sightrite and other such aids?

I said good sighting, not perfect. Of course there will be misses due to sighting as well, but I feel not nearly as many as due to technical problems.

Not sure why you bring in pro players and some of their sighting methods. Yes, some have endorsed that famous one and have had success with it. Was it because of new found confidence, new motivation, or extra hours of practise on the table? Who can tell? Then again some have given up on it.