CJ Wiley's Aiming system=CTE=?
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
I think they are fundamentally different.
The first step in Chin's system is determining the desired contact point on the object ball. It's an attempt at exactness -- contact point to contact point.
CJ's system does not involve finding a contact point at all. It's an approximation system, dependent upon one's experience in judging which reference point on the CB to send at which reference point on the OB for the proper degree of thickness of hit. None of the reference points are the actual contact point.
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying; I see what you mean. I asked for more details because I wasn't sure whether you were talking just about line-of-sight complications (centered vs. off-centered on the CB) or also the smaller appearing OB. I see that you mean both.
When I use Chin's approach, I try to think of sending the CB down that one-rail track or plane that is slicing through the two contact points. I'm concentrating on that track, even if the cue is offset to the center of the CB. Since I'm visualizing a line between the two contact points, I don't worry about perspective differences in size of the two balls.
CJ's reference points on the OB are both the edge and the center, not just the edge.
It's not worth it........you're right.
Last edited:
It has been said before and I concur that many aiming systems that require offset aiming away from the center of the CB are like a railroad track with two rails; one rail on the center of the CB and the other on the offset preliminary aim line...contact to contact point; edge to edge or edge to center or edge to OB fractions etc...
The important thing is that the the tracks converge in relation to the appearant smaller size of the OB as it lies down table from the CB....The tracts as with real train tracks will eventually appear to converge to a single point at infinity...or close to it. LOL
:smile:
Thanks again,
In rethinking your position, I also believe that there is real value in the contact point on the OB aligned to the contact point on the CB.
I have pointed my cue aligned with both of these points regardless of the distance between the CB and OB....which is off of the center of the CB relative to the cut angle desired.
I can then parallel shift the cue from that aim line (which is off of the center of the CB) back to the center of the CB and shoot.
What is nice about this method is that all of the points of aim lie on the equator of the OB and never off of the edge of the OB (away from it's outer edge)... like a point on the felt or the rail or...wherever.
This method takes the pivot out of the equation as in CTE and can enhance accuracy...parsimony. In engineering, we have to deal with cumulative tolerances that can work against arriving at the desired result. The more parts that must be bolted to a bolt pattern, the more opportunities for error.
An example of this is CTE, as I understand it:
- Start at CTE...are you centered on the CB?
- Parallel shift 1/2 tip or a full tip or 1/2 CB or...?
- move your bridge forward or to the back of the CB?
- Pivot from the new bridge location back to the center of the CB -are
you really centered?
Thus, there are at least 4 opportunities for a cumulative error. I admit that some tolerances may offset others, but if aiming the contact point on the OB with the contact point on the CB can be perceived and the cue aligned correctly to the center of the CB, there will be less opportunities for cumulative error.
In order to see the contact point on the OB, one must realise the line from the center of the pocket or target as it passes through the OB to the point on the OB equator that that line exits.
It is usefull to relate that line as it relates to the line from the OB to the CB as an angle...15, 45, 75 degrees etc.. Through trial and error, one can memorize how to adjust for that angle to a center CB hit...understanding that at contact of the CB to the OB, the two in contact will travel a finite distance before separation resulting with a bit less than the true geometric cut angle.
So the mind can create a mental "look up table" to recognize the angle to the pocket/target as it relates to the position of the OB and CB and make adjustments for the environment of the table i.e. cloth speed, humidity etc..
Since I am only addressing a center CB hit, squirt and swerve are not considered.
I am just saying.:smile:
Last edited:
LaMas -- Yes, yes, and yes!!! Sure, with contact-point-to-contact-point aiming there is the potential for an error in judging the OB contact point and keeping it in sight, and then the potential for more error in finding the equal-but-opposite point on the CB, but at least it is a direct method. You find the two points that must collide, and then you stroke to make them do so. Direct! Exact, if done well! Two points (or one line or one plane) that are somewhere on the balls, not outside them. I always question something when it involves an indirect method when a more direct method is available.
Your mention of a mental look-up table, however, is something I would relate more to playing by feel rather than CP-to-CP. When I'm using CP-to-CP, I want to think of it (in engineering or math terms) as a continuous function rather than a discrete function. Wherever those contact points are, just bring them together -- without thinking at all about the actual size of the cut angle.
Thanks for your follow-up post. Maybe you'll use this technique a bit instead of CTCP?
Below is taken from a thread I started a while back. I have never purchased any aiming system books or DVD. For any of you that know the systems....how would you catagorize the way I aim?
thanx, G.
I have been tweaking my game using what I think is a basic understanding of Hals system that I hyjacked here and from Spiderweb.
I cut the OB into 4 slices....down the middle in half, then cut each half in half. I aim using the outside edges of the CB and align it with one of my 3 dividing lines. That is what I use on about 85% of shots. The rest of the shots fall into a specialty catagory of mostly real thin cuts aiming for an "1/8th" ball hit.
Now, it may sound too simplistic to only have a few aiming points, but here is where the system REALLY works well if you understand it. Each aim "slice" has actually 3 shots built in.
shot 1 is center axis no side spin.
shot 2 is inside or outside as needed with basic spin 1 tip.
shot 3 is inside or outside as needed with max spin 2 tips.
so, on lets say a basic cut shot to the left where you would use left side of CB to first dividing line in from left side of OB and no spin.....
you could also aim left side of CB to left side of OB AND 2 tips of right spin to make the ball.....
you could also use the left side of CB and CENTER dividing line on OB and 2 tips left spin to make the ball......
This is the part of the "sectioning the OB aiming system WITH SPIN" that took me the longest to figure out. I should have taken Hal up on the invite to his house when I had the chance....the learning curve would have saved me a year of work! ....I'm kinda stubborn.
So, if you are trying to learn or use the above system, remember there are multiple shots for each section of the OB.....I like doing it this way instead of sectioning the OB into 8 or more pieces....easier to see for me.
If you all use something like this but see it different then I do please let me know, I'm always trying to learn something new.
good luck,
thanx, G.
I have been tweaking my game using what I think is a basic understanding of Hals system that I hyjacked here and from Spiderweb.
I cut the OB into 4 slices....down the middle in half, then cut each half in half. I aim using the outside edges of the CB and align it with one of my 3 dividing lines. That is what I use on about 85% of shots. The rest of the shots fall into a specialty catagory of mostly real thin cuts aiming for an "1/8th" ball hit.
Now, it may sound too simplistic to only have a few aiming points, but here is where the system REALLY works well if you understand it. Each aim "slice" has actually 3 shots built in.
shot 1 is center axis no side spin.
shot 2 is inside or outside as needed with basic spin 1 tip.
shot 3 is inside or outside as needed with max spin 2 tips.
so, on lets say a basic cut shot to the left where you would use left side of CB to first dividing line in from left side of OB and no spin.....
you could also aim left side of CB to left side of OB AND 2 tips of right spin to make the ball.....
you could also use the left side of CB and CENTER dividing line on OB and 2 tips left spin to make the ball......
This is the part of the "sectioning the OB aiming system WITH SPIN" that took me the longest to figure out. I should have taken Hal up on the invite to his house when I had the chance....the learning curve would have saved me a year of work! ....I'm kinda stubborn.
So, if you are trying to learn or use the above system, remember there are multiple shots for each section of the OB.....I like doing it this way instead of sectioning the OB into 8 or more pieces....easier to see for me.
If you all use something like this but see it different then I do please let me know, I'm always trying to learn something new.
good luck,
Joe T
Well-known member
Nope, mine is strictly cp-cp and CJs is more slice of cb to slice of ob based on the angle of shot facing you.
Once you know my aiming lines you will be able to identify the 2 cps immediately and then it's a matter of making them connnect, which can be tough for many of us.
I always liked CJs method but didn't teach it because I didn't like the part of it that would call for me to teach people how to recognize what angle of a shot they were facing as I wasn't really good at doing that myself.
BUT with all this talk about aiming systems in the forum at the same time and me coming back into the groove of things;
I awoke this morning and my first thought was "ahha, I could use my aiming lines which are drawn out in 10 degree increments to improve ones perception of recognizing shot angles.
The generally thought that I had was okay the object ball part is easy, it’s on this line so it’s going in at blank degrees and that would be a definite cuz it’s laying on one of my aiming lines. Now for the tough part, how do I know what angle the cb is approaching the object ball? Well this will not be a definite but I can guide and help improve someones perception if they use my aiming lines as parallel references. And once they get good at that they would be able to say okay "this is a blank degree angle and that calls for cb section to be pointed at this ob section.
I’ll try to do some drawings later to explain where I’m coming from but if someone wants to get a head start on that feel free as I believe my son is pulling me towards a big green field with a little white ball as we speak.
Great thread!
While screwing around with pivot methods, I discovered that cut shots can be viewed as triangles.
The triangle is formed by: the target, the point on the OB equator farthest from the target and the point on the CB equator closest to the target.
The target and OB contact point are trivially knowable. The CB contact point, for me, had been in the "dark side of the moon" category until I had this little "triangle" epiphany.
Imagining the target to CB line helps me more accurately perceive the line of connection between the cue and object balls.
Of course, as always, allowance for english induced throw, collision induced throw and continental drift induced throw must be allowed for.
Bringing a reliable, repeatable stroke to the table is left as an exercise for the student.
YMMV
pete
occasional flashed of B
too often in the slough of D
While screwing around with pivot methods, I discovered that cut shots can be viewed as triangles.
The triangle is formed by: the target, the point on the OB equator farthest from the target and the point on the CB equator closest to the target.
The target and OB contact point are trivially knowable. The CB contact point, for me, had been in the "dark side of the moon" category until I had this little "triangle" epiphany.
Imagining the target to CB line helps me more accurately perceive the line of connection between the cue and object balls.
Of course, as always, allowance for english induced throw, collision induced throw and continental drift induced throw must be allowed for.
Bringing a reliable, repeatable stroke to the table is left as an exercise for the student.
YMMV
pete
occasional flashed of B
too often in the slough of D
Joe T
Well-known member
Hey I’m quoting myself?
Well that was the coldest freakin 9 holes I ever played! Didn’t bother the kid though.
Ok, before you read on thinking “really do I have to know all this stuff to pocket a ball?”
The answer is definitely NOT. AND I don’t want to bog anyone down but to explain what I’m talking about is going to sound and look to some like TOO MUCH info so remember I’m really just showing you how learning where 10 degree angles are on the table so you can add to your game. It’s just like learning a system to get you in the neighborhood and then you taking it from there. If you look at a table as I do from a 0-90 approach you can use that info to your benefit many, many times.
Okay for those that want to improve their shot angle recognition to improve their current method of aim (like CJs) or position play you can use these aiming lines out of the side and corner pockets as constant reference points.
They are all broken into 10 degree increments with cross table representing 90 degrees and zero degrees being the length of the table.
Corner pockets page 1 side pocket angles page 2;
To use this for shot recognition, once you know what angle the ob is going into the pocket you would have to add or subtract the cbs angle to the ghost ball position to get your cut angle. The cb path will require a little more guess work as you would probably have to visually parallel the line over from one of the 10 aiming lines as I have done in the diagram below.
Here you can use the aiming calculator to see a 15, 30, 45 & 60 degree cut shot by moving the cb around. You can see the object ball is going into the upper left corner pocket on the 45 degree line on all the shots and then we would have to recognize what the cbs angle of approach is.
Here it is;
Ffrom the mid table position with plain cb it’s coming in at ZERO degrees, so this shot is simply a 45 degree cut shot
From Shot “A” the ob is still at 45 now minus the cbs 30 degree angle of approach to form a 15 degree cut shot
Shot “B” the cb is coming into the ghost ball position at 15 degree so we’re left with a 30 degree shot.
Using the 1 ball as cb “C” we now add to the cut, so ob going in at 45 and cb coming to ghost ball at 20 degrees we have a 65 degree cut shot.
Looks way complicated at a glance cuz there too many lines but it's really not.
Has anyone ever heard of a different method that identifies the shot angle? I’m sure there has to be some?
I feel like I just wrote a BD article that is going to make this new player run for the hills. Sorry if I hurt some but hope I helped some too.
FYI, some methods are described here:
How to Estimate a Cut Angle - Dr. Dave Pool Info
Answers to frequently-asked questions about how to estimate a cut angle in pool.
billiards.colostate.edu
Regards,
Dave
Last edited: