John, thank you for not going on the defensive with your reply.
I like the "corridor" terminology. That is *exactly* what I see when I'm shooting ghostball, by the way. ... I focus on where that corridor goes *through* the object ball, and I aim to shoot the cue ball right at the "exit spot" (for lack of a better term).
How in the world are you going to prove your stroke was straight all the way through the delivery of the cue ball, John? You yourself even admit your fundamentals are not the best, although I'm not sure to take that as merely "misdirection from the truth" or if you really mean that.
What I meant was that I propose to use my ruler to draw a chalk line directly to the full face hit and then shoot the shot. Watching the video you can then see if the cueball travels down that line or if veers off and goes to the geometric contact point line.
Actually also I wanted to address the idea that I am subconsciously steering the cueball because I want the object ball to go in. In this experiment I lined up as if the 10 was going to be hit full in the face. I know how to line up that way and can make straight in shots consistently.
I do not think that this is a case of subconscious steering but instead more like a perceptual illusion where I although I think I am lined up to hit it full on - in reality I am lined up on the in between space between dead on and the geometric contact point or the corridor.
I am actually quite familiar with shooting this shot into the rail as one pocket is my favorite game and this shot is a common two railer. However when I do it I automatically aim a little "fuller" to insure that I don't underhit it at too shallow an angle.
You can film the video and show the 10-ball going in, and proclaim loudly, "There, see? I hit dead center on the 10-ball and it went into the pocket!" But how would we know, other than taking your word for it?
Well I have a CueSight training ball which can show just where the tip contacted the ball within a half-tips width. It's easy enough to show on camera the before and after condition of the ball.
Do you have access to a LaserStroke or some kind of laser pointer you can mount on your cue? If you do this video, I personally would like to see where that laser line is at the exact point of contact of the cue ball. It *better* be also painted through the vertical center of the object ball (10-ball) as well.
I certainly could get a laser pointer and mount it to my cue but I think that the chalk line would serve that purpose just as well. I also have a CueSight laser cue which has a laser pointer mounted inside the shaft.
In the past I have mounted a laser level to a camera tripod in order to lay down lines on the pool table. But that's neither here nor there. The chalk line combined with the training ball should be sufficient to show what the hit was.
I already tried this shot at varying distances. I'm not bragging about my fundamentals, but I do have snooker fundamentals, as well as access to a LaserStroke, and I know for a fact when I hit that cue ball dead center into the 10-ball, that LaserStroke is painting a vertical line through the vertical center axis of the 10-ball. The ball doesn't go, no matter the speed I hit it, and no matter the distance the cue ball is from the object ball.
And this is fine. So you have perfect alignment coupled with perfect fundamentals. You are not subject to the same illusion and perception errors that others who try this shot are subject to.
The point I was making however is that for many people where they THINK that they are aligned and where they are actually aligned may not be the same and this shot illustrates that.
For you, where you think that you are aligned is perfectly synchronized with where you are actually aligned. That should translate into someone who is a very good player which you are. I think that this is the hallmark of all good players because pocket billiards is a brutally success driven endeavor. In order to keep playing you have to keep making balls. Fail that and your opponent gets to play and you get to watch.
John, how do you know your stroke is "dead straight"? (Again, taking into account past comments you yourself made about your fundamentals, and you yourself also admitting "...so I could "steer" it with the TINIEST of adjustments." Personally, I think your stroke should be locked in, and shouldn't permit adjustments / steering. But then again, that's a different school -- a school that believes that you should lock into your aim, and never waver once you're down on the shot. For a lot of pool players, that's a very foreign way of thinking, because of the loosey-goosey stance/style inherent in pool.)
I don't know that my stroke is dead straight. I do know that with a little warm up I can do the drill where I send the cueball up table and back down and in between two stationary balls with just a few mm of clearance on both sides. I can do this over and over once I get warmed up. So to me that indicates that I am able to line up on a very finite line, am able to hit the exact center of the cueball and able to send the cueball up and down the table on a perfectly straight line.
I understand your snooker school thoughts on stroking and the proof is quite clear when snooker players play pool that they have exceptional pocketing skills.
However another group which also has excellent pocketing skills is the Filipinos. And one would be hard pressed to say that they are "locked in" when they are doing the pre-shot warm up strokes. At least not in the same way that snooker players are.
In the past ten years I have watched a LOT of videos of Efren and Busty to try and understand their approach to aiming. Efren uses the rails more than any living human as far as I am concerned. When he is facing a shot he can make it split the pocket or use the rail equally as well. Snooker players don't have this ability because they cannot shoot the ball into the rail to make it.
So it's clear to me that the Filipino have developed a style that is approaching the shots in a more sensual manner rather than a rigid mechanical manner.
Interestingly both approaches work. At the end of the day both the Filipino top player and the Snooker player drive their tip through the ball at precisely the spot that they intend to. One may result in a ball that is pocketed by hitting the rail on the way in and the other might go in totally clean but the end result is that the ball is pocketed and the run continues.
Absolutely! It does go both ways. You won't get any argument from me to the contrary. That is why when you shoot a shot you miss, you're supposed to stay down for a moment and digest what just happened, so that the subconscious mind can reprogram. Too many pool players pop up, and lose this perspective of the shot -- which discards this useful information. You won't see many snooker or Pyramid players popping up, that's for sure!
Well now we are discussing other techniques. I submit that players like Lou Butera and Tony Drago don't subscribe to the stay down and reflect method of playing. They just run around making balls and once in a while they miss one.
All players have their ways of dealing with aiming and fundamentals. I am certain as the day is long that there are great players out there who have never read a book or watched a tape or taken a formal lesson. They got good by playing (the Chris Bartrum method) and just figured it out. Other players couldn't get there that way and so for them they had to work very hard on drills and through instruction (the Niels Feijen method).
Yes, this is true -- and goes right to the heart of what I'd been saying in this thread all along -- what works for some, doesn't work for others. What really chaps my *ss are these CTE advocates who propose a "one size fits all" attitude. Like even though I see the ghostball naturally and very visually (goes back to that 3D perceptive visualization I have), that if I were to just throw away this naturally-occurring information, and go with a blind (for me) point/pivot/shoot system, that I'd "go up at least a ball or two." Oh really?
I don't know who has ever said that CTE is one size fits all. What they have said is that CTE works for just about anyone willing to take the time to learn it.
No one asked you to throw away something that works. But consider the examples of Stevie Moore who was already a world class player when he went to see Stan Shuffet or Matt Krah, Gerda Hofstatter and Yu Ram Cha. These are players one could argue who already had the skills and were doing pretty good with what they already knew.
The thing with being really good is that you have the ability to discern and digest what works and to discard what doesn't. However to dismiss something just because of an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude means that you cannot progress. Many people in life have a way of doing something that works perfect fine even though it may not be the best way, or the most efficient way, the end result is that it produces satisfactory results. However many people who are shown another way often do discard their old way which was working just fine and then find that they can do more with the new way.
Look, I know you mentioned in the past that you also "see" the ghostball. But I don't think you "get it" when I say just how visually *I* see it. You know how when you look at a bright object for a few seconds, then close your eyes, you still see a "visual imprint" of the scene on your eyelids for a few moments? When I look at a pool table layout and do this (close my eyes), I see a visual imprint of the table layout, plus the ghostball, plus those corridors we were just talking about. No kidding.
Great. This is a talent that you have which others don't have. It sounds as though it even borders on autistic. I am not asking you to change.
Great chess players can play blindfolded. They can even do this on multiple boards at the same time. While this is a skill that can probably be developed with practice I submit that for the great players it's more natural than with most other people.
Studies have shown that visualization and memory can be improved with real focused practice. The basic test here is to go through flash cards and ask people to write down or recite the sequence they saw. Most people can't do this very well, some people can. However with some training the people who weren't able to do it well at first were then able to equal or exceed the results of those who can do it naturally.
That's why it's difficult for me to just discard that information. I just see it plain as day. It's hard to turn off. And why should I? I'm already an open-level player, and I only play two or three times a week.
Again no one is asking you to change. Your participation in this thread isn't required if the only contribution is to tell us that Ghost Ball works for you. If I were you then I would just stay out it altogether and leave it for other people who want to try it and perhaps who can't use Ghost Ball as well as you can.
If the thread had merely stuck to allowing the people who know CTE to talk to the people who don't know CTE and want to learn then we wouldn't be here right now.
I am sure that if you start a thread about Ghost Ball then the CTE guys won't come rushing in to argue about it and tell everyone that they must use CTE to aim and distract from the message.
It's simply choice.
Now having said that I would bet that IF you had learned CTE first that you would be equally as good now if not better because of your ability to see circles and lines in their accurate positions. I have no doubt about that. It's like when I hand a jump cue to a player who already can jump really well with a full cue. Suddenly they can do more with the jump cue in minutes than I can do despite my ten years of practicing with it.
Anyway, I appreciate the friendly and intelligent banter. Thank you! Seriously.
Warmest regards,
-Sean
My pleasure, like begets like as they say. It's always a pleasure for me to read your writing because it is thoughtful and well conceived even if we don't totally agree on some points.
Best,
John
