Aparallel CTCP aiming method

L

LAMas

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
May I proffer “Aparallel” CTCP (Center of CB to Contact Point on object ball [OB] “aparallel” shift to center of OB then pivot back to the center of the CB – method of aiming.

The bridge remains constant at say 14" or what ever is comfortable. This works for all distances between the CB and CB – with practice.

What I interject that is new, to me, is the appreciation for perspective, foreshortening and converging parallel lines as they approach infinity - to be a bit hyperbolic.

Two dimensional drawings from a top view of traditional CTCP would conclude that your bridge needs to be in back of the CB the same distance as the distance between the OB and CB – proven by geometry with identical triangles.

This works until the OB and CB are 7 feet apart or longer than your cue etc.

In practice though, one needs to get to the table and get down on the shot. You will immediately notice that the appearance of the OB being down table is smaller than that of the CB.

The disconnect, to me, is that 2D drawings don't show this - the OB and CB are drawn at the same size say 2.25" diameter.

So when I did my parallel shift I was shifting say 1/2 ball at the OB for a 90 degree cut and a corresponding 1/2 at the CB with horrible results. What I did was to ignore the CB and only concentrate on the parallel shift, from a top view of the cue, at the smaller appearing OB, in perspective, which is never the same size as the CB - it is always much smaller...but I said to ignore looking at the CB.

As the object ball goes farther down table, the OB appears smaller and the distance of the shift from the contact point (CP) to the center of the OB gets smaller and thus the included angle has to narrow...or you will fly past the OB to the outside.

What I liked was that the shift is always from the CP to the center of the OB... not to one or the other side of the CB for thick and thin cuts as in CTE.

What I have little problem with is finding 6:00, or contact point, for I am a double distance shooter. What I don't like about CTCP is that you need to be very accurate about the parallel shift.

What I had hoped to find out with CTE was an alternate solution (than double the distance) for thin cuts where the aim point was off of the equator to edge of the OB - somewhere on the felt or rail.

As I said before, parallel lines appear to converge as they travel to infinity…so what I eventually use is “APRALLEL” shifting.

Starting at CTE:
The traditional wisdom for parallel shift/offset for the cue would be to shift the cue say from the edge of the OB at one end of the equator at say, 3:00 to the center of the OB - one would naturally shift the cue to the corresponding 1/2 CB from center to 9:00 on the CB. This would be true from a top view.

When at the table and down on the shot, the OB being down table appears smaller than the CB. I said to disregard the CB during this step and shift the cue parallel from 3:00 on the OB, down table, to its center which would be a smaller shift than on the CB.

[Conventional wisdom would say well, I shifted the cue 1/2 ball from 3:00 to its center, so I will shift the cue the corresponding 1/2 ball from the center of the cue to 9:00 - as said above. This would seem reasonable but, in order to do this, you would be moving the cue in an arc with it's axis at infinity.
This is where I lose the audience LOL].

In fact if the OB was at 9 feet down table, the shift would be very tiny for the OB would appear to be a tiny sphere. If the OB were moved to infinity,
it would not be detectable for it would be but a dot.


img073.jpg
 
Last edited:
The example below is for a 45 degree cut to a pocket to the left.
The cue tip is pointing at the center of the CB to...
The contact point is just inside of the 3:00 edge of the OB (1/16 ball diameter).
The cue is shifted parallel to the left to the center of the OB.
The cue in the overhead diagram is pointed just inside of the left edge of the CB say 1/8 Ball.

Now look at the two circles in the lower left with the large CB close to you and the smaller OB which is down table. (disregard the image of the OB being on top of the CB)
The contact point is just inside of the right edge of the small OB and is on the center line of the CB.
The cue is then shifted to the center of the smaller OB.

Butttt...the cue thus shifted is inside of the CB by approx 1/4 ball and not the 1/8 in the top view described above. This is the "big", to me, discovery that allowed me to narrow the arc of the pivot back to the center of the CB. The ability to vary the arc with regard/proportion to the OB appearing smaller down table allowed me to not miss to the right of the OB.

So if the OB was farther down table and thus appearing smaller, the shift, to the center of the OB at the CB would be inside of it by more than 1/4 to 3/8 ball, to 7/16 ball to 15/32 ball toward the center of the CB.


img074.jpg
 
Damn it!!! I never got past Algebra, I'm quitting this game!!!
Unless somebody can sell me a protractor for cheap.;)
 
LAMas,

I see what you are saying here. Without saying too much and out of respect to CJ Wiley, I would suggest you check out his aiming system on his video. You will appreciate it with all your hard work you have put in your aiming proofs. Thank you for sharing. :thumbup:
 
I don't think aparallel is really a word. You can't just tack the a- prefix willy nilly onto any word. If you want to say the day is cold or just temperate, do you call it "ahot"?

(hoping to turn this into a grammar debate)
 
CreeDo said:
I don't think aparallel is really a word. You can't just tack the a- prefix willy nilly onto any word. If you want to say the day is cold or just temperate, do you call it "ahot"?

(hoping to turn this into a grammar debate)
Click to expand...

You are correct sir.
I willy nilly added the "a" in place of "non-"......to attract attention...I failed miserably. There is little interest in the wrong word or the contents of what I proffer.

Wiki:
Prefixes
A prefix is placed at the beginning of a word to modify or change its meaning.

Prefix Meaning Examples
a- also an- not, without atheist, anaemic

Thanks for your interest and the bump up.:)

LAMas looking for more input or criticism like CTE.:)
 
LAMas said:
....
LAMas looking for more input or criticism like CTE.:)
Click to expand...
I've generated some preliminary plots regarding where you have to do the first pivot for the non-parallel shift to OB centerball. This is the pivot performed before the next pivot to get to CB centerball when holding the latter pivot at a fixed location, say, 14" behind the center of the CB. It'll take more time to put them in a presentable form along with an explanatory diagram or two.

You may or may not be looking at the non-parallel shift as a pivot, but in effect, it is. You may feel that the raw perspective scaled image data in the focal plane does this automatically (determines the first pivot distance), but only if you have your eye in the right place. That would be at this first pivot point. That is, one of your eyes would have to be there in order to see each point on the cue moving across the image plane by the same amount as you perform the pivot, thus perhaps giving the illusion of a parallel shift.

From the graphs, my initial impression is that there are going to be some problems determining that location, but I haven't really looked for a straightforward construction. The good news is that for CB-OB separations greater than the length of your cue, each of the two pivots (to OB center and then to CB center) can be brought well within a cue's length.

If this is completely counter to the way you see it....

Jim
 
Jal said:
I've generated some preliminary plots regarding where you have to do the first pivot for the non-parallel shift to OB centerball. This is the pivot performed before the next pivot to get to CB centerball when holding the latter pivot at a fixed location, say, 14" behind the center of the CB. It'll take more time to put them in a presentable form along with an explanatory diagram or two.

You may or may not be looking at the non-parallel shift as a pivot, but in effect, it is. You may feel that the raw perspective scaled image data in the focal plane does this automatically (determines the first pivot distance), but only if you have your eye in the right place. That would be at this first pivot point. That is, one of your eyes would have to be there in order to see each point on the cue moving across the image plane by the same amount as you perform the pivot, thus perhaps giving the illusion of a parallel shift.


From the graphs, my initial impression is that there are going to be some problems determining that location, but I haven't really looked for a straightforward construction. The good news is that for CB-OB separations greater than the length of your cue, each of the two pivots (to OB center and then to CB center) can be brought well within a cue's length.

If this is completely counter to the way you see it....

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks,
The fact that it works, for me, was fascinating. Dr-Dave also pointed out that though I couldn't describe what was happening with regard to perspective and vanishing point, rolling a dowel etc., he also said that he would think more about it.

I starting to conclude that it is different Points of View (POV).
- When behind the CB looking at the smaller OB is one perspective.

- I then shift my stance and POV to center CB to CP on OB which is another.

- I then parallel/laterally shift my shaft (like rolling a dowel) to the left or right to the center of small OB which does not truely aim at the center of the OB (top view) but a fraction of it due to my POV and (new) perspective. This is necessary to move the bridge to the new location before the pivot back to center of CB.

I still don't see the parallel shift as an arc, but I am looking from above and altering the viewing plane.

But you know that.

Thanks for your interest and study...
 
Ugh, I guess I'll add some non-grammar input but you won't like it any better =)

One of the things that made CTE different was the lack of contact point. Your system uses a contact point. From what I understand, you are pointing the stick directly at the contact point [vs. at the ghostball], shifting the bridge laterally, and pivoting back to center of the CB cte-style.

In theory you then end up on the line of aim, but only after some some acrobatics to determine the proper sideways shift. And if you factor in perspective, you end up with variables that must be estimated (basically you learn them from experience).

If you can accurately use the contact point in this (or any other) system... it just feels like you're adding a bunch of steps to what is essentially ghostball.

There is a very real world and practical way to place your bridge in such a way that you are on the correct aiming line once you point at the center of the cue ball:
1. Eyeball the line between the OB and pocket to get your contact point. I mean physically walk near the OB to make this easy.
2. Put your tip on that line exactly hall a ball width behind the OB CP. It helps to physically lean over it and get a bird's eye view.
3. With your tip resting there, walk back around to your shot so that your cue is on a new line between the tip's resting place and the middle of the CB.

Voila, that's your aiming line and you now know where to place your bridge hand. Or you visualize it as the line your stick falls on... and just position the bridge to accomodate the stick. If you succeed in placing it correctly, you need only point at the dead center of the cue ball and you're on the aiming line.

There is one judgment call to make (half a ball behind the contact point) but surely that's easier to figure out than

A. The initial judgment call of where the CP is that you're pointing at (harder to see when you're at the shooting position vs. walking around the table to do the tip placement thing)
B. The rotation to a distant OB center (difficult to judge because it's not as easy to spot as the center of a CB that's reasonable close)
C. The parallel shift (apparently depends on OB distance, a constantly changing variable)

...and I guess we won't count pivoting back to center of the CB. Though I think it can be messed up.

I guess this goes back to mullyman's thread... what I see when I look at this is too many moving parts. The words "wildly impractical" come to mind. If you need to hit a million balls to figure out ghostball or contact points, I think a system like this might need at least 2 million.
 
Last edited:
LAMas said:
The example below is for a 45 degree cut to a pocket to the left.
The cue tip is pointing at the center of the CB to...
The contact point is just inside of the 3:00 edge of the OB (1/16 ball diameter).
The cue is shifted parallel to the left to the center of the OB.
The cue in the overhead diagram is pointed just inside of the left edge of the CB say 1/8 Ball.

Now look at the two circles in the lower left with the large CB close to you and the smaller OB which is down table. (disregard the image of the OB being on top of the CB)
The contact point is just inside of the right edge of the small OB and is on the center line of the CB.
The cue is then shifted to the center of the smaller OB.

Butttt...the cue thus shifted is inside of the CB by approx 1/4 ball and not the 1/8 in the top view described above. This is the "big", to me, discovery that allowed me to narrow the arc of the pivot back to the center of the CB. The ability to vary the arc with regard/proportion to the OB appearing smaller down table allowed me to not miss to the right of the OB.

So if the OB was farther down table and thus appearing smaller, the shift, to the center of the OB at the CB would be inside of it by more than 1/4 to 3/8 ball, to 7/16 ball to 15/32 ball toward the center of the CB.


View attachment 138822
Click to expand...

LAMas,

The setup you are using is the 90/halfball line of aim. It is part of the 90/90 system. It is used for shots that are less than 2 diamonds apart or for shots that are greater than 30 degrees and more than 2 diamonds apart. You can setup initially with step 2 as you become familiar with the distances and angles.

You are right. It does work very accurately when the setup is right.

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
LAMas,

The setup you are using is the 90/halfball line of aim. It is part of the 90/90 system. It is used for shots that are less than 2 diamonds apart or for shots that are greater than 30 degrees and more than 2 diamonds apart. You can setup initially with step 2 as you become familiar with the distances and angles.

You are right. It does work very accurately when the setup is right.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,
90/halfball...new name...is it in dr_dave's colostate blog?

What I dont like about 90/90 is you need to estimate where the line from the pocket enters the OB and project that point to the nearside of the OB.

Alternatively, I can look at the contact point and transfer the distance from the outside edge of the OB to the contact point and then mirror that to the (opposite) 90/90 side doing the same to the CB as well.

What I like about it is that there is no parallel/lateral shifting or reverse pivot (from the back).

Thanks.
 
LAMas said:
Mike,
90/halfball...new name...is it in dr_dave's colostate blog?

What I dont like about 90/90 is you need to estimate where the line from the pocket enters the OB and project that point to the nearside of the OB.

Alternatively, I can look at the contact point and transfer the distance from the outside edge of the OB to the contact point and then mirror that to the (opposite) 90/90 side doing the same to the CB as well.

What I like about it is that there is no parallel/lateral shifting or reverse pivot (from the back).

Thanks.
Click to expand...

LAMas,

I have to apologize for my short answer this morning . I was running late for work and I was pretty vague. The 90/half ball term is one of 3 coined by Ron Vitello explaining the 90/90 system's adjustments for angle or distance. They are the 90/90 (CB edge to OB edge), 90/half ball (CB edge to center of OB) and 90/reverse 90 (CB edge to opposite edge of OB). If you notice the system starts with aiming at the CB edge on all 3 setups. You vary the setups as the distance or angle changes, not your bridge or pivot.

There is no offset so you are not looking out into space for a parallel alignment of the CB or OB. You are always looking at the OB and when you hip pivot your entire torso and head move in unison. You don't need to readjust your feet and shift over. You are locked in at that point.

On Dr. Dave's site Cleary has a short post and diagrams with the first setup. These are good. You have figured out the second setup, 90/half ball (center of OB) which is a very impressive task considering Ron V didn't know about CTE when he formulated 90/90 aiming. So you're in good company. Ron V is as sharp as they come. :thumbup:

If you are interested there is another thread on 90/90 you can look at. There is also the CTE students thread on Yahoo by John (JB Cases) where your keen observations will be welcome. http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cte-students/

Best,
Mike

PS Thank you Dr. Dave! :)
 
Mikjary said:
LAMas,

I have to apologize for my short answer this morning . I was running late for work and I was pretty vague. The 90/half ball term is one of 3 coined by Ron Vitello explaining the 90/90 system's adjustments for angle or distance. They are the 90/90 (CB edge to OB edge), 90/half ball (CB edge to center of OB) and 90/reverse 90 (CB edge to opposite edge of OB). If you notice the system starts with aiming at the CB edge on all 3 setups. You vary the setups as the distance or angle changes, not your bridge or pivot.

There is no offset so you are not looking out into space for a parallel alignment of the CB or OB. You are always looking at the OB and when you hip pivot your entire torso and head move in unison. You don't need to readjust your feet and shift over. You are locked in at that point.

On Dr. Dave's site Cleary has a short post and diagrams with the first setup. These are good. You have figured out the second setup, 90/half ball (center of OB) which is a very impressive task considering Ron V didn't know about CTE when he formulated 90/90 aiming. So you're in good company. Ron V is as sharp as they come. :thumbup:

If you are interested there is another thread on 90/90 you can look at. There is also the CTE students thread on Yahoo by John (JB Cases) where your keen observations will be welcome. http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cte-students/

Best,
Mike

PS Thank you Dr. Dave! :)
Click to expand...

Mike,
I understand and agree with your observations, sources and descriptions.

That one doesn't have to shift from the obverse CP (90) on the OB to the obverse CP (90) on the CB and just pivot is elegant, but it doesn't account for distance of the bridge to the CB, as you said earlier (I believe), when the separation between the OB and CB changes.

I contend that the shift that the "aparallel shift" CTCP that I described at post #1 to the center of the smaller appearing OB does this - compensates for the OB being further down table.

If one can master that shift, it may help one learn to pocket balls - if other methods are not yet mastered.

Thanks again for your input.:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top