Yup...shot picture or image.
How else does Charlie Williams (or his peers) roll the object ball and cut it into the pocket on the fly...ball after ball at increasing speeds.......CTE without pivot?
Aiming systems
- Thread starter 12310bch
- Start date
Yup...shot picture or image.
How else does Charlie Williams (or his peers) roll the object ball and cut it into the pocket on the fly...ball after ball at increasing speeds.......CTE without pivot?
Sighting wing shots, like Earl
Actually, methinks you were thinking about Earl Strickland there, not Charlie Williams:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O8pDccgPKxo
I can't picture Charlie Williams being quick enough to sight and nail wing shots, especially with the ingrained get-down...pop-up...get-down...pop-up...ad-nauseum pre-shot routine Charlie has.
On topic with Earl, that's gotta be lightning-fast sighting and zeroing-in while that object ball is in motion like that. And notice Earl does it at ever-increasing distances as he tosses balls down table.
Although I'm not saying it's impossible, I highly doubt a CTE system could be employed here, because as Spidey says:
Step 1: you sight the CTEL first
Step 2: then calculate your "fire control solution" from there with a pivot.
With a moving ball, you don't have time to do that -- you have to see your fire control solution right out of the chute, instantaneously. That's ghostball.
-Sean
Actually, methinks you were thinking about Earl Strickland there, not Charlie Williams:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O8pDccgPKxo
I can't picture Charlie Williams being quick enough to sight and nail wing shots, especially with the ingrained get-down...pop-up...get-down...pop-up...ad-nauseum pre-shot routine Charlie has.
On topic with Earl, that's gotta be lightning-fast sighting and zeroing-in while that object ball is in motion like that. And notice Earl does it at ever-increasing distances as he tosses balls down table.
Although I'm not saying it's impossible, I highly doubt a CTE system could be employed here, because as Spidey says:
Step 1: you sight the CTEL first
Step 2: then calculate your "fire control solution" from there with a pivot.
With a moving ball, you don't have time to do that -- you have to see your fire control solution right out of the chute, instantaneously. That's ghostball.
-Sean
Luxury nailed it. I think we have a sort of visual memory of recurring shots. The only thing I disagree about is... I think it's not just pros, it's most of us. We line up, steer left or right until it looks correct, fire. In my case I line up always to undercut then keep cutting until I've gone too far. Then I go back a hair and fire.
Anyway. You know how much to cut a ball because you've run into it before and your brain sort of remembers what the correct cut angle looks like. After shooting it a thousand times you can recall that correct mental image a little more clearly. When the shot in front of you matches the mental image, something clicks and your brain says "stop adjusting. That's it." If you don't know it very well your brain just tells you that certain lines of aim are definitely not it... but you never quite zero in on "it". So you take your best guess between 'definitely overcut' and 'definitely undercut'.
Wing ball shooting is something like... when that rapidly shrinking object ball looks like it's almost at the point where it's a known makeable ball that's somewhere in your visual memory... fire.
Randy: right, which is why I think searcy is off base if he's trying to claim throw doesn't exist or doesn't matter. According to him you can ignore throw and as long as you don't butcher the shot you'll be ok. But he recommended a touch of outside on rail cuts. So some part of him must know throw really does matter, even if you hit it well.
Anyway. You know how much to cut a ball because you've run into it before and your brain sort of remembers what the correct cut angle looks like. After shooting it a thousand times you can recall that correct mental image a little more clearly. When the shot in front of you matches the mental image, something clicks and your brain says "stop adjusting. That's it." If you don't know it very well your brain just tells you that certain lines of aim are definitely not it... but you never quite zero in on "it". So you take your best guess between 'definitely overcut' and 'definitely undercut'.
Wing ball shooting is something like... when that rapidly shrinking object ball looks like it's almost at the point where it's a known makeable ball that's somewhere in your visual memory... fire.
Randy: right, which is why I think searcy is off base if he's trying to claim throw doesn't exist or doesn't matter. According to him you can ignore throw and as long as you don't butcher the shot you'll be ok. But he recommended a touch of outside on rail cuts. So some part of him must know throw really does matter, even if you hit it well.
Ok. I have to find the diagram but it's Colin Colenso's potting (pocketing) test.
Do a search on that and maybe it will come up quickly.
searcyD
Banned
I didn't term it properly. I meant for shots where you're shooting away from the long rail, and no I didn't mean to advocate a certain spin, sorry. If I find an example from a video I'll post it later.
Yes, and it involves GUESSING. This is the fundamental PROBLEM with the Ghost Ball method. You have to guesstimate how much deflection/throw/squirt/squerve etc... there will be for the given speed/spin/elevation and adjust your aim accordingly.
At it's simplest you say to yourself I THINK that there will be about a quarter ball of deflection so you aim a quarter ball off the NO-SPIN ghost ball position. If you're right then you will make the ball providing all of your other mechanics are sound. However if you're wrong, bad guess or maybe you just can't see the ghost ball where it really should be anyway, then your success rate will be inconsistent and frustrating.
This is the WHOLE POINT of reference point aiming to me.
With Reference Point methods most, if not all, of that guessing is taken out out the routine.
In my experience that is.
This theory of "remembered success" sounds good but I must be one of those people who is brain damaged in that area.
Because pre-Hal I would practice a shot to death until I felt super good about it. I would do exactly the type of fine tuning you are talking about - this shot should be cut this way - that shot should be shot that way - avoid this shot because it's too tough with inside english, etc.....
Then in game situations I would be faced with the shot but a little different, opposite side or something - maybe I needed to shoot it at a certain speed - whatever and I would miss a lot. I knew exactly what my trouble balls were and avoided them like the plague. I would play all sorts of exotic position to avoid giving my self one of MY low percentage shots.
Then after meeting Hal and learning one of his Reference Point aiming systems I started making those previously low percentage shots with incredible (for me) consistency and accuracy.
I stopped looking at shots as being individual problems with one being harder than another. I started approaching them all the same way and trusting the system to put me on the right line.
This was hard because my BRAIN was screaming at me that I was WRONG - my "memory" or "shot picture" or whatever you want to call it was telling me to do what I "knew" rather than to trust the unfamiliar.
My old diving coach used to say that if you are comfortable doing it the wrong way then the right way will feel wrong.
Now, all these years later I can step into the shot line correctly MOST of the time without overtly using any system. My mind and body have in fact been trained BY THE SYSTEM to see the right line in an instant. But if I don't then I have something that I can use to double check it before I pull the trigger.
As Dave Segal (Spidey said) pool is a result oriented activity. The pleasure comes from making balls disappear. No one gets pleasure out of missing and missing when you THINK you are perfectly lined up is triply frustrating.
I have shown Hal's systems to good players and beginners alike and the response is nearly universal - HOW does this work? This is crazy, they say, this feels wrong but the balls are splitting the pocket.
So on this point of players having a "shot picture" or muscle memory I have to say that you are probably right but that if the players are using a method that involves a lot of guessing then their "picture" will always be slightly out of focus.
searcyD
Banned
I never claimed any of that. In my first post, I used the phrase outside in to term a particular shot which you mistaken for a rail cutshot. Even if an "outside in' is a rail cutshot, how did any of my words lead you to believe that i meant " use a touch of outside"? I don't know a better way to discribe the shot.
Last edited:
Searcy, I apologize, I totally misread what you said. You didn't mention using outside on the cuts. My bad.
Here's why you're not seeing obvious throw on your force follow shots:
1. follow doesn't really throw a ball much, not as much as draw or sidespin.
2. Throw happens worst at slow speeds. At high speed you actually cancel it out a little.
I know it takes some patience but take the time to go through this page, there's REALLY some good info and it's all tested and true. It's not one guy's half-baked theory, it's the result of hours of testing using high speed video. Most good players know this stuff.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#maximum
Read the list of bullet points about throw. The info about speed is the very first point.
If you need video proof, try this on for size:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jUL_8aZ2LU
Here's why you're not seeing obvious throw on your force follow shots:
1. follow doesn't really throw a ball much, not as much as draw or sidespin.
2. Throw happens worst at slow speeds. At high speed you actually cancel it out a little.
I know it takes some patience but take the time to go through this page, there's REALLY some good info and it's all tested and true. It's not one guy's half-baked theory, it's the result of hours of testing using high speed video. Most good players know this stuff.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#maximum
Read the list of bullet points about throw. The info about speed is the very first point.
If you need video proof, try this on for size:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jUL_8aZ2LU
As a matter of fact I can prove it and I have proved it to my own satisfaction. I related the story earlier of showing it to the APA 3 and APA 5 who within minutes were making shots that were well beyond their experience level.
The story I didn't tell you is that a few weeks after meeting Hal I was in a Denver hotel for the night and they had a pool table in the lobby.
I was playing by myself and an older lady approached me and offered to play. We played a few games and she would barely qualify for an APA 2. However she could hit the ball straight.
So I decided to see if Hal's system would work for her and I wanted to see if I could explain it.
About 30 minutes later she got it and she also was making shots that were way way over her head.
So based on these two early experiences and many more over the years I feel confident in repeating the statement that Ghost Ball is INFERIOR to Reference Point aiming systems.
As in does not work as well and should not be taught at all.
However if you wanted to bet a little then I propose the following experiment that we could do.
We go out on the street and find two people who have never played pool.
We give both of those people a two hour lesson with a BCA Master instructor on the basics of stance and stroking. NOTHING about aiming - they aren't even allowed to have more than the cue ball.
Then after that you get your person for a one hour lesson on aiming using ghost ball and I get my person for a one hour lesson on whatever reference point system I choose to teach them.
Then we allow both player to independently without seeing each other do a series of shots and we will then compare the success rate of each player. The shots will range from those considered easy to those considered hard by most people.
The loser pays all the associated costs of the test and donates $2000 to the Billiard Education Fund.
How about that? Then we can see if ghost ball is inferior or not.
Well they certainly aren't using Ghost Ball on wing shots.
FYI, I have the diagram and full description (from Colin) here:
Regards,
Dave
When using English, every "aiming system" (even "feel") requires compensation for squirt, swerve, and throw (CIT and SIT) with varying shot speeds, distances, cut angles, cue elevations, ball and cloth conditions, and types and amounts of English. For more info, see:
Regards,
Dave
Really John? And where's/what's your proof of that?
I submit that the "see CTEL, calculate pivot, do pivot" is too time-consuming for such a dynamic shot as a wing shot. First, your CTEL is moving even if the object ball is rolling 100% away from you (versus off to an angle). Think about this for a second, before engaging fingers to keyboard in defense, ok? As that object ball gets smaller and smaller, the CTEL is "seemingly" pivoting closer and closer to the object ball's center (even though it technically isn't -- it's always tangent to the object ball's edge, but the gradually decreasing size of the object ball causes the CTEL to proportionately move inwards). The only time this isn't true, is if the person tossing the object ball down the table, did so in such an incredibly accurate fashion so as to line the final fire control solution line (the post-pivot line) as being straight down the table no matter the distance of the cue ball, in which case, one is ignoring the CTEL altogether and focusing instead on that final post-pivot fire control solution line.
With ghostball, the center of the ghost ball is the center of the ghostball. It doesn't change, no pivot needed. So if one tosses an object ball 100% away from him/her (which is not as difficult as it may seem -- watch the Earl Strickland video in one of my previous posts in this thread), no matter the distance of the object ball, the ghost ball center contacting that object ball in the correct spot is always a straight line away from you -- you don't have to pivot your cue.
And admittedly, wing shots are a PRACTICED shot. You have to practice these, to get the timing down. I once read an article about Earl, specifically about wing shots, and Earl was inspired by stories of the great Ralph Greenleaf not only being able to nail consecutive wing shots (like the rapid-fire series that Earl demonstrated in the video), but Ralph could do wing shot combinations! (Or "combination shots on the wing," or "combination wing shots" as some refer to them -- roll two balls down table, and shoot the cue ball into one of the balls to have it combinate into the second ball to pocket that second ball.) In this article, Earl explained how he uses the wing shot as a practice technique to instantly sight the solution angle to pocket the ball, to "see" the ghostball and shoot the cue ball into its space. In other words, he's training his mind to see the solution QUICKER and more clearly. Sounds like a great practice technique to me!
-Sean
"The loser pays all the associated costs of the test and donates $2000 to the Billiard Education Fund.
How about that? Then we can see if ghost ball is inferior or not."
Sounds like a unique challenge.
Nobody uses CTE or ghostball for wing shots. It's a sub-conscious shot. The same way nobody uses a system to hit a fast ball with a bat - it's intuition.
ok this maybe a dump question, but what is a "wing shot"?
From my online glossary:
wing shot: a “trick” shot where you roll the object ball and hit it into a pocket while it is moving (“on the fly”)
Regards,
Dave
STICKBNDER:
Looks like you came in on the tail end of this discussion, but refer to this post:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=2382835#post2382835
Or, if you want a demonstration of a wing shot, refer to the first half of this video (the link of which is also included in the above-referenced post, but I'll make it even easier for you by reiterating it here):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O8pDccgPKxo
Hope that helps,
-Sean
P.S.: just noticed Dr. Dave replied to your question as well. Another great answer!