Well contact points don't exist, so how can one those? I've never seen one on a ball.
Are you can't see contact patches either. You're guessing how far 1.125" is from the equator at a ball on many cuts. The center and edges of balls are the only objective points. The distance of 1.125" isn't what I'd call objective.
What points do you use for CTE? Are those points on the ball? So me the points on the ball you use. There aren't any.
The CENTER and the EDGE. The only two objective points on any sphere.
I can point to the edge at the equator or the center (base/top) of any ball. I can probably show you a bunch of different line lengths and you'd have no clue which one is 1.125" >>>>
^^^ This is if your eyes are right on it. At any distance, the above lines appear way smaller. Therefore, it's a flat-out guess estimate on where exactly 1.125" is at any distance. Sure you can get really close --- but you can't knock CTE for being invisible when there are CLEAR objective visual reference points and your little cabbage patch doesn't have anything that's objective UNLESS you use the..........
BABE CRANFIELD ARROW:
THEN, it's as objective as well.
If you don't know what ghost ball contact patch, maybe you need to research it a bit but it is much easier to make fun of the person and not the subject. It makes more sense that TOI, 3part pocket, fade the ball nonsense that everyone is now sucking up to in order to look cool.
FWIW
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=231742&highlight=aiming+isn't
I get.... I'm not trying to sell anything or make grand statements about how much your game will improve by using ghost ball therefore it must not work. Sine you don't need on going instruction to help you understand what's on the DVD, ghost ball just can't be useful way to aim.
I'm not making fun of the GB contact patch, I pointing out its inherent weakness. The simplicity in the concept (1 1/8" off the OB equator) is in reality what makes it so complex; which is also why many people never improve with those concepts and move on to aiming systems.
The bottom line is no one gives a shit about what you say or what I say or what anyone says---- people DO give a shit about what CJ has to say because he offers interesting perspectives on topics because he played the game at the highest level. When you're trying to earn your league B&R patch, that guy was beating the world on the road for tons of cash.
We all get that you love the contact patch-- that's great. People get I like to pivot aim (nice). The bottom line is people can keyboard-play all they want and chalkboard all they want to prove that X and Y can't work -- but here you are knocking someone who's a legit champ trying to share what he feels works and you stuff it up his ass.
We should make a poll on who people want to listen to and learn from: DUCKIE vs CJ WILEY. Duck, you're a tiny little child amongst the presence of a REAL man when it comes to debating this game with CJ, pal. No post, no internet debate, no "talking point," no "contact patch," no "Babe Cranfield book" will ever change that.
Lou, PJ and a few others trying to chirp-in and back you and each other up in hopes of TRYING to make CJ look bad. But, you can duct-tape all of you guys together and you still don't have the knowledge and execution ability of one of his ass hairs, let alone his whole body. If he doesn't have any hair on his ass--- well, that's what you call "winning by default" and that's the only way any of you can get there on that one.
Poor fellow...I mean poor brain.