Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Instruction & Ask the pros > Aiming Conversation
Reload this Page Please Explain Your "Aiming System"?
Reply
Page 5 of 10 « First 345 67 Last »
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old
  (#61)
stan shuffett
AzB Silver Member
stan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kentucky
   
09-12-2017, 07:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony_in_MD View Post
I get where you are coming from, and I can see why you believe the multiple line approach based on the same location creates a constant visual perspective. More to think about, and this is why I hope to work on it with you. Lots to learn here, if one keeps an open mind.

Maybe this is off base but here is an example of an experience that happened to me.

25 or so years ago I decided to switch to contact lenses in place of glasses. First thing I did was put the contacts on at home and ran to the pool table. To my shock the balls were all ovals, they were not round any more. At some point in time they became round again, as my brain adapted to the sensory information coming in, and began processing it as a round sphere, and not an egg shaped object. Trust me I was ready to take back those contacts when it first happened.

Fast forward to last year, I had a second procedure done on my left eye which was deteriorating slowly. I know that I had compensated for the difference in visual acuity in my set position all of those years as it was slowly getting worse. This is the reason I started to come across the shotline when I was standing up. My final head position now is changed over the cue in part that both of my eyes are working as an equal team.
Spot on! Using both eyes as an equal team is optimal for the purest form of CTE. My advice is to maintain that approach. It will make your visual alignments adjustments for learning CTE much easier.

Stan Shuffett
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#62)
BC21
Poolology

BC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond repute
 
BC21's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: West Virginia
   
09-12-2017, 07:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
You make some legit points and this is where I must add some context. You aim conventionally seeking to narrow your focus along one line. There's lots of visual spaces from which that can happen for traditional aiming.
CTE expands one visual focus rather than narrowing it. You focus on one line while I work with 3 lines.......2 and 3 lines are always superior to one when aiming.
Im just coming at you from a different visual approach.

Stan Shuffett
I believe this is what really confuses me with CTE....the "3 lines are better than 1 line' mentality. I understand the visuals, like picking up the CTE and ETA lines from one exact place to "fix" the CB. But that perspective can be found with any two objects in line with each other. It's not limited to spheres.

Anyway, using 1 visual line can also "fix" the CB. It's pretty simple. Let's pick the 3/4 fractional aim point on the OB (same as A or C on the OB in CTE). At this spot on the OB is one endpoint of our single line. The other endpoint comes straight back through the center of the CB toward the player. Done. The CB is "fixed". There is only one possible line that can be visualized from this point on the OB to center CB. It's the aim line, and the cue stick then gets placed along this line in order to send the CB in that exact direction.

So I don't understand how using 2 or 3 lines that result in a certain solution is any better than using 1 line that accomplishes the same end result.


POOLOLOGY
Brian Crist

Last edited by BC21; 09-12-2017 at 07:41 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#63)
stan shuffett
AzB Silver Member
stan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kentucky
   
09-12-2017, 08:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BC21 View Post
I believe this is what really confuses me with CTE....the "3 lines are better than 1 line' mentality. I understand the visuals, like picking up the CTE and ETA lines from one exact place to "fix" the CB. But that perspective can be found with any two objects in line with each other. It's not limited to spheres.

Anyway, using 1 visual line can also "fix" the CB. It's pretty simple. Let's pick the 3/4 fractional aim point on the OB (same as A or C on the OB in CTE). At this spot on the OB is one endpoint of our single line. The other endpoint comes straight back through the center of the CB toward the player. Done. The CB is "fixed". There is only one possible line that can be visualized from this point on the OB to center CB. It's the aim line, and the cue stick then gets placed along this line in order to send the CB in that exact direction.

So I don't understand how using 2 or 3 lines that result in a certain solution is any better than using 1 line that accomplishes the same end result.
It's apples and organges. For the most the part 1 line aiming using a LOT of aim space on the OB. 1 line aiming often results in uncertainty creating a lack of confidence and confusion. Some days on other days perhaps not so much.
When I say 3 lines, I mean 3 known lines......I want the known so that doubt stays at bay.
It's easier to focus with 3 known lines that one iffy line. The known packed into those 3 lines keeps the mind from wandering. 3 lines can be attended in less than 1 second.

Reading speed at 300 words per minute is superior to 100 words per minute concentration- wise.

Sorry to be vague but that's all the detail that Im going into before my release of book and online videos.

Stan Shuffett
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#64)
Vorpal Cue
Just galumping back
Vorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond reputeVorpal Cue has a reputation beyond repute
 
Vorpal Cue's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 203
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Tulgy Woods
   
09-12-2017, 08:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan White View Post
I mean, you are saying that once the correct shot angle is determined, the rest is simply objective and rote. For this shot angle use this ferrule and 10 degrees of pivot and pocket the shot, right?

For shots this close to the pocket it works well. Spider stated that for now it's just baby steps. The shot family is not going center pocket, he's using the whole pocket. Let him move the CB to different positions and explain the whole system. He said the system can be used to cut angles approaching 90*. Since you've stated you have trouble with your back cuts, I'd think you'd be interested.

I'm wondering how figuring out that correct shot angle happens for, say, a new player.

Some systems aren't meant for novice players and this is one of them imho

Oh, and CTE users don't look for contact points.

???? Where'd that come from?

Make it simple. Just tell me in a few sentences that do not involve sines and cosines how you determine the shot angle to begin with.

It's the tangent and cotangent that's used for angle finding but that's another subject. You could use the quarter of the OB the CP is in to estimate the proper angle family. That's the two ways I use for estimating angles. You'll have to find your own method if neither of those work for you.
I believe his system could be just as valid as the quarters system for aiming purposes. Let's wait and see what he shares.


My Vorpal cue jabbed 'er wonky and the shot went snicker-snack. 'Twas brillig.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#65)
BC21
Poolology

BC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond repute
 
BC21's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: West Virginia
   
09-12-2017, 08:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
It's apples and organges. For the most the part 1 line aiming using a LOT of aim space on the OB. 1 line aiming often results in uncertainty creating a lack of confidence and confusion. Some days on other days perhaps not so much.
When I say 3 lines, I mean 3 known lines......I want the known so that doubt stays at bay.
It's easier to focus with 3 known lines that one iffy line. The known packed into those 3 lines keeps the mind from wandering. 3 lines can be attended in less than 1 second.

Reading speed at 300 words per minute is superior to 100 words per minute concentration- wise.

Sorry to be vague but that's all the detail that Im going into before my release of book and online videos.

Stan Shuffett
I understand the vagueness. Good idea.

I still don't see how a known aim line, like my 3/4 example (or CTA), is any less iffy or less known than a CTE or ETA/B/C line. But I suppose I'll find out when the book gets released.

Thanks.


POOLOLOGY
Brian Crist
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#66)
stan shuffett
AzB Silver Member
stan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kentucky
   
09-12-2017, 08:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BC21 View Post
I understand the vagueness. Good idea.

I still don't see how a known aim line, like my 3/4 example (or CTA), is any less iffy or less known than a CTE or ETA/B/C line. But I suppose I'll find out when the book gets released.

Thanks.
Even if a 1 line system had 8 lines per each side of the OB, that's NOT enough for a CCB center pocket declaration. There's 360 ticks on the CB and 360 ticks on the OB. Simply put, 1 line is not sufficient enough for solving exact tick to tick relationships from a left brain descriptive approach. It takes more than 1 line to unlock the combination for any given shot. There's essentially a zillion shots and 8 or even 16 1 liners won't solve all of the shots in a known matter. Feel must enter into the equation. That does mean the game can't be played based on 4 lines or even 8 lines but the lines will require that the player ultimately do tweeners from time to time to time. It's called adjustment.

Stan Shuffett

Last edited by stan shuffett; 09-12-2017 at 08:42 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#67)
BC21
Poolology

BC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond repute
 
BC21's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: West Virginia
   
09-12-2017, 09:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
Even if a 1 line system had 8 lines per each side of the OB, that's NOT enough for a CCB center pocket declaration. There's 360 ticks on the CB and 360 ticks on the OB. Simply put, 1 line is not sufficient enough for solving exact tick to tick relationships from a left brain descriptive approach. It takes more than 1 line to unlock the combination for any given shot. There's essentially a zillion shots and 8 or even 16 1 liners won't solve all of the shots in a known matter. Feel must enter into the equation. That does mean the game can't be played based on 4 lines or even 8 lines but the lines will require that the player ultimately do tweeners from time to time to time. It's called adjustment.

Stan Shuffett
Well, there are 360 ticks/degrees on each ball, but on any given cut shot you're only facing half of those, and your only cutting one side of the ball. So now we're down to 90. Subtract the low percentage sucker cuts and we're closer to dealing with 80. We can easily narrow the single line to an aim point +/- about 3 of the required angle needed to pocket the ball. Add a touch of left or right spin for thick or thin and we've got the line in tune to within 1 degree. Considering the contact patch is typically between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees wide, depending on shot speed, there is some margin of error at the point of collision. The contact point is never as precise as a 1 point, so even the 80 ticks I'm talking about for cut shots are really much less.


POOLOLOGY
Brian Crist

Last edited by BC21; 09-13-2017 at 05:19 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#68)
paultex
AzB Silver Member
paultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Dec 2014
   
09-12-2017, 09:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BC21 View Post
I believe this is what really confuses me with CTE....the "3 lines are better than 1 line' mentality. I understand the visuals, like picking up the CTE and ETA lines from one exact place to "fix" the CB. But that perspective can be found with any two objects in line with each other. It's not limited to spheres.

Anyway, using 1 visual line can also "fix" the CB. It's pretty simple. Let's pick the 3/4 fractional aim point on the OB (same as A or C on the OB in CTE). At this spot on the OB is one endpoint of our single line. The other endpoint comes straight back through the center of the CB toward the player. Done. The CB is "fixed". There is only one possible line that can be visualized from this point on the OB to center CB. It's the aim line, and the cue stick then gets placed along this line in order to send the CB in that exact direction.

So I don't understand how using 2 or 3 lines that result in a certain solution is any better than using 1 line that accomplishes the same end result.
I have not read any further responses from here but your cue stick angle does not officially count as a line of any kind imo. If anything, without other forms of fixed or lines of verification, it should be ignored to a certain degree but it's hard for me to explain.

A pocket often acts as a engrained point of reference to give confidence or familiarity of stick angle that often works and that's fine but you know as well as i or i think maybe you know, there is another side to the cueball that the stick either out in space or no known or comfortable point of reference even with a pocket, and that's where stick angle itself betrays you, let alone a line of any kind other than a pointer.

I use stick too but I don't think it's anywhere near as important as true fixed lines but there's plenty of shots where you don't have much to work with like other shots or else cutting a 30 degree angle to the left with a ton of inside on a cueball frozen to the rail would be a piece of cake and maybe it is but I haven't figured out much yet to make it automatic yet and perhaps never will I guess.

Your a lefty, so that high inside shot would be a 30 degree cut to the right. That should be very visually and mechanically uncomfortable for you I would imagine.

I personally would take 1 million lines if it were possible. I want as many as I can get. Stan says 3 but I thought he only had 2 to work with but maybe he counts stick as a 3rd and I count it too myself but like I said, I don't consider it a top verifier on the list even though it's obviously important.

It works well if someone has a repeatable approach but that means it's dependant. In Stan's case of edge to A, center to edge, it's fixed. You can't have one without the other. A stick angle dead straight down the line of center don't mean squat to me unless it actually delivers dead straight at launch point and thats an objective shot. Shots out in space are something else all together where my stick is as good as my pee pee imo.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#69)
BC21
Poolology

BC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond repute
 
BC21's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: West Virginia
   
09-13-2017, 05:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paultex View Post
I have not read any further responses from here but your cue stick angle does not officially count as a line of any kind imo. If anything, without other forms of fixed or lines of verification, it should be ignored to a certain degree but it's hard for me to explain.
..................
I'm talking about a known line of aim, not a stick angle. Let's say your practicing with a ghostball template. You have a known point of aim. The line from that point to CCB is a known solution. Sure one player might see it differently or incorrectly, but that problem presents itself in the outcome of the shot.


POOLOLOGY
Brian Crist
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#70)
SpiderWebComm
Banned
SpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond repute
 
SpiderWebComm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,917
vCash: 1275
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
   
09-13-2017, 05:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorpal Cue View Post
Nope, I'd say it's an objective system that uses known values: tip diameter, pivot distance, and center OB.

Yep, you learned your lesson well which only comes from GETTING ON THE TABLE AND DOING IT MULTIPLE TIMES. What you said is exactly how it works.. But I want to go on the record right now and say IT STILL DOES NOT TRUMP CTE. Hal's version and especially Stan's version.

When Hal taught both of these methods to me years ago he said CTE was the stronger of the two BUT the other one was great. I experimented with Shane's three tip ferrule alignments and pivot distances to make it objective and it works like a charm. If it's not done exactly as it should be with fudging and feel brought in, the OB could still possibly be made with some slop, but there's also a good chance it will be entirely missed.

That's not to say shots won't be missed with this either. But it will be primarily caused by the player's stroke or possibly choosing the wrong alignment on the OB or tip/ferrule.

There are only three alignments for a right cut and 3 for a left cut, not 10, 8, or 7 in one direction like contact points or fractions.


With a knowledge of the angle needed to pot the ball you can objectively choose one of the techniques to make the shot. The different techniques fall into a 'family' of angles.

I like what you said, "fall into a family of angles". This is what will NOT register on brains of those who don't get on the table and become familiar and adept with it. How can multiple angled shots possibly be made with the same alignment? They'll continue to bring in all the protractors, math, and geometry to attempt debunking it and claim it's fraudulent and impossible.


I can't argue about it because it's only a loose framework now. Let's let Spider release it before you make the claim it's a feel system.
No more of it is going to be released openly in public on this forum. Why? Because I'll be damned if a bunch of forum clowns (no names mentioned) are going to come on here and continue to claim it's all feel, you need a certain pivot length, bridge length, "it can't possibly work as described", the math doesn't fit, the CB can't possible be 6"-12" different between shots and have the same alignment, etc, etc. and put me through the same sh*t as they've put Stan and Hal.

I also know even IF they went to the table and shot 100 balls randomly placed anywhere with 98% pocketed as the system describes it, they would never admit it and continue to bring out all of the old ammo from 20 years ago just as I see it being done already. They still do it with CTE, why wouldn't it be done with this?

Because that's just the way it is! Does anybody think it will stop after Stan's book comes out? It SHOULD, but it WON'T! And it will be the same cast of characters. At least here. Once Stan has his own forum and Facebook page, they won't have access or will be BANNED immediately.

(check your PM's)

Last edited by SpiderWebComm; 09-13-2017 at 06:23 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#71)
denwhit
AzB Silver Member
denwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond repute
 
denwhit's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,069
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
   
09-13-2017, 05:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
Even if a 1 line system had 8 lines per each side of the OB, that's NOT enough for a CCB center pocket declaration. There's 360 ticks on the CB and 360 ticks on the OB. Simply put, 1 line is not sufficient enough for solving exact tick to tick relationships from a left brain descriptive approach. It takes more than 1 line to unlock the combination for any given shot. There's essentially a zillion shots and 8 or even 16 1 liners won't solve all of the shots in a known matter. Feel must enter into the equation. That does mean the game can't be played based on 4 lines or even 8 lines but the lines will require that the player ultimately do tweeners from time to time to time. It's called adjustment.

Stan Shuffett
Well wait.... I thought the size of the table; 2 X 1, meant that CTE works! Meant that the balls go toward the holes (because of the 2 X 1 table gearing action). You're at the other end of the table and the 9 ball is sitting stuck to the 4 ball and into the pocket at the other end. The balls are tied up and you've got to hit the one ball toward the shot 6" away from the corner pocket into the 4 ball to sink the 9 ball. How does that happen when everything is geared toward the pockets? NOW, you're going to tell me you have to rely on your old method of aiming instead of CTE?


* Mark Gregory walnut rails
*RKC set up w/ 42 pt. leveling system
*ProjectorProBilliards MicroComputer
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#72)
stan shuffett
AzB Silver Member
stan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond reputestan shuffett has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kentucky
   
09-13-2017, 06:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by denwhit View Post
Well wait.... I thought the size of the table; 2 X 1, meant that CTE works! Meant that the balls go toward the holes (because of the 2 X 1 table gearing action). You're at the other end of the table and the 9 ball is sitting stuck to the 4 ball and into the pocket at the other end. The balls are tied up and you've got to hit the one ball toward the shot 6" away from the corner pocket into the 4 ball to sink the 9 ball. How does that happen when everything is geared toward the pockets? NOW, you're going to tell me you have to rely on your old method of aiming instead of CTE?
The objective for most all games is to get the balls in the hole and CTE is a beast at doing just that.
When the situation calls for doing something other than ball pocketing that does not mean that I have to revert to a different visual style for getting things done.

GOOD GRIEF! I give up, You got me.
Was playing playing 1 pocket recently. Needed 8 balls. 8 balls on the table. Ran 7 in my hole. The last ball was sort of near my opponents hole. There was no geometric route to my pocket. The only thing that I knew how to do was to make it in his hole. So, I just fired it in for him but I did put a really good stroke on it., My buddy asked me wth I was doing and I told that I am a dimwit and all that I can do is make balls.

Stan Shuffett

Last edited by stan shuffett; 09-13-2017 at 07:44 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#73)
denwhit
AzB Silver Member
denwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond reputedenwhit has a reputation beyond repute
 
denwhit's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,069
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
   
09-13-2017, 09:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan shuffett View Post
The objective for most all games is to get the balls in the hole and CTE is a beast at doing just that.
When the situation calls for doing something other than ball pocketing that does not mean that I have to revert to a different visual style for getting things done.

GOOD GRIEF! I give up, You got me.
Was playing playing 1 pocket recently. Needed 8 balls. 8 balls on the table. Ran 7 in my hole. The last ball was sort of near my opponents hole. There was no geometric route to my pocket. The only thing that I knew how to do was to make it in his hole. So, I just fired it in for him but I did put a really good stroke on it., My buddy asked me wth I was doing and I told that I am a dimwit and all that I can do is make balls.

Stan Shuffett
Thanks for that. I know a guy that can make the OB go where he needs it... inside the number 1 (thickest) part of the pocket all the way to a 5 (thinnest) for shape AND he can hit it in any direction he wishes because he can hit 100% of the 180 degrees of the OB. Now what aiming system should one follow? I'll catch hell because I've seen it time after time and most on here haven't.. but that fact won't stop the laughter. bbb on AZB has but he is not into this subject. Maybe his talent is not teachable, but it's fun to watch and what a wonderful thing to learn.


* Mark Gregory walnut rails
*RKC set up w/ 42 pt. leveling system
*ProjectorProBilliards MicroComputer

Last edited by denwhit; 09-13-2017 at 09:57 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#74)
paultex
AzB Silver Member
paultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond reputepaultex has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Dec 2014
   
09-13-2017, 09:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BC21 View Post
I'm talking about a known line of aim, not a stick angle. Let's say your practicing with a ghostball template. You have a known point of aim. The line from that point to CCB is a known solution. Sure one player might see it differently or incorrectly, but that problem presents itself in the outcome of the shot.
Ok, like i said, its hard for me to explain.

The stick "angle" pointing at a spot or method of aim, is not a line that by itself, is reliable. It's ok if there is another line acting as a parallel reference or whatever, but it's still not reliable even if it looks proper or matches verification, because that is a line that can easily change when its too late.........meaning after you pull the trigger.

So, when left by itself and no other references, then it is in fact "target shooting" as Stan says in his videos and I personally agree that it sucks.

The way youre describing it, then you should be able to hit any ball in space dead on straight with maximum side spin and get the cue ball to stop after contact and sit and spin like a top. You play one pocket and know what i mean about balls in space, where there is no known angle connected to a pocket or in the form of a bank, just your regular safe shots where sometimes you needs a ton of spin but hold the CB etc etc.

If stick angle representing a line by itself was reliable, i would beat god by now and give Stan the 2 ball and the breaks.......I think.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#75)
BC21
Poolology

BC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond reputeBC21 has a reputation beyond repute
 
BC21's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,321
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: West Virginia
   
09-13-2017, 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paultex View Post
Ok, like i said, its hard for me to explain.

The stick "angle" pointing at a spot or method of aim, is not a line that by itself, is reliable. It's ok if there is another line acting as a parallel reference or whatever, but it's still not reliable even if it looks proper or matches verification, because that is a line that can easily change when its too late.........meaning after you pull the trigger.

So, when left by itself and no other references, then it is in fact "target shooting" as Stan says in his videos and I personally agree that it sucks.

The way youre describing it, then you should be able to hit any ball in space dead on straight with maximum side spin and get the cue ball to stop after contact and sit and spin like a top. You play one pocket and know what i mean about balls in space, where there is no known angle connected to a pocket or in the form of a bank, just your regular safe shots where sometimes you needs a ton of spin but hold the CB etc etc.

If stick angle representing a line by itself was reliable, i would beat god by now and give Stan the 2 ball and the breaks.......I think.
Lol. I understand. Let's forget the stick....it's not part of the line. Are you saying that a known visual line of aim from CB to OB that is guaranteed to send the OB into a pocket, is less accurate than using 2 visuals, one from CCB to OB edge, the other from CB edge to the players best estimate of either the A, B, or C point on the OB??

The accuracy of all of these visuals, the single or double method, is equal. But with the single visual you are already looking at the solution for the shot. With 2 or 3 or 8 visuals (or however many), the solution is a result of a combination of visuals. It all seems unnecessary if you already know the solution. I mean, if we're standing outside of an open doorway, while you are locating the exact center entry by using multiple visual lines from a fixed focal point/perspective and then somehow choosing a solution to enter, I've already walked through the door based on the obvious solution I saw when I first looked at the opening.


POOLOLOGY
Brian Crist
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 5 of 10 « First 345 67 Last »

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.