A long comment on "aiming systems" ...
- Thread starter Grilled Cheese
- Start date
I don't have the time to analyze any of the new systems completely, that is why I don't offer an opinion on any of them regarding the possiblity to get the "true line" of aim.
Most likely they do, my sceptisism is based on their complexity as appears at first anyway, which may lead to loss of overall function together with the danger of overdealing with systemic approach as I explained.
I saw some of the diagrams presented here and a video of SVB.
As I get it from the video SVB is doing the "right" thing, that is getting "in line", the one he chooses, from the start by placing his stance appropriately.
If I got it right by a diagram placed here there is some "pivot" of the cue in one of these systems after the stance is settled.
If that is the case I believe this is a non functional system, anything could work for a player but ususally getting the cue out of the initial line that is supported by the stance makes cueing very difficult by having to adjust to a line that the initial stance was not placed for..
If on the other hand after the line of aim is established the player gets up and sets her/his stance all over again to it then this could work, please don't forget though that energy save is essential for playing well.
All the top players, all over the years in all billiard sports once they get down nothing moves from their initial line of aim which is identical with the cue's line, no matter where they aim, taking into account all relative factors...
If I get something wrong here, please correct me.
Thanks,
Petros
Most likely they do, my sceptisism is based on their complexity as appears at first anyway, which may lead to loss of overall function together with the danger of overdealing with systemic approach as I explained.
I saw some of the diagrams presented here and a video of SVB.
As I get it from the video SVB is doing the "right" thing, that is getting "in line", the one he chooses, from the start by placing his stance appropriately.
If I got it right by a diagram placed here there is some "pivot" of the cue in one of these systems after the stance is settled.
If that is the case I believe this is a non functional system, anything could work for a player but ususally getting the cue out of the initial line that is supported by the stance makes cueing very difficult by having to adjust to a line that the initial stance was not placed for..
If on the other hand after the line of aim is established the player gets up and sets her/his stance all over again to it then this could work, please don't forget though that energy save is essential for playing well.
All the top players, all over the years in all billiard sports once they get down nothing moves from their initial line of aim which is identical with the cue's line, no matter where they aim, taking into account all relative factors...
If I get something wrong here, please correct me.
Thanks,
Petros
Last edited:
Its pool, you always know where the pockets are. Contrary to some peoples thoughts they don't move. The pocket is used as a reference for your ctel. No real need to walk behind the OB or pay a lot of attention to the pocket, its only a reference to help you get your ctel.
4 versions, probably a lot more variations than that. Stan's version IMO is the very best, he studied it and made it really simple.
Ever watch Bustemonte play, lining up low left on everything than shooting. Its no different and when you get your "visual intelligence" right not even that. What we really talk of is a "half tip pivot", nothing to get out of whack about, no need to stand up and readjust.
So you can judge if the hit is too thick or too thin with CTE ?
In ghost ball or line of aim, to aim thicker, you just reduce the angle of approach or imagine a thicker hit.
In CTE, how do you do that ?
Change the CTEL ?
In one sense, yes, in another no.
There are people who think that the pocket moves? What I know is that the exact same CB to OB relationship can exist on multiple positions of the table.
The most I've seen the pocket used as a reference in description is in whether to determine a thin cut, thick cut or super-thin cut. That plays a role in using CTE or ETE or ETC whatever.
There's a few problems with that. For one, there's no precise limits to what is thick or thin. Secondly, what these three references do is to group the CTE alignment system into three "classes" or groups of angles. Unfortunately, there are more angles necessary to pocket balls. CTE does not account for those, and defaults to "feel" based pivoting and judgment.
A proponent can say "well at least it narrows you down", meaning to within a smaller possible range of acceptable angles for the shot. Doesn't mean they all work, only one will work. But it could lessen the margin of error. Kind of how low deflection shafts lessens the total range of squirt, allowing the player to work with and "feel" or adjust within a smaller range.
Problem for me is, that is a lot of work and unnecessary steps just to narrow down a little bit. When I get down on a shot, I'm either on the exact line of aim or I am really, really close to it. If I need to guesstimate or adjust, I'm working with a small adjustment range already. I will not go very far, because I know I'm already close to the line. How is this system better in making that a simpler process or easier? To me, it's more complex.
Now, for the few shots CTE does give the line of aim, that's great. But again, I question the usefulness of a system like that for only obtaining a line of aim on a group of shots. For example, if I need a 30 degree cut, I know that is a half ball hit. Aim to the edge of the OB. That is super easy. And like CTE, it only works for a particular angle.
Wouldn't that put english on the cueball ?
And your altering the direction of your natural stroke ?
What you see in perspective, foreshortening and the vanishing point cannot be diagramed from above unless you use smaller diameter OBs as the separation/distance from the eye/CB gets larger.
Your down on the shot and the black ball is your CB and you are looking at progressively smaller OBs from the CTEline. If you parallel shift prepivot to the center (or the other edge of the OB in the diagram) of each OB, you will shift a smaller distance when the OB is farther away. This visual also decreases the angle from the CTEL to the center (or the other outer edge) of the OB so that you have compensated for this and after you pivot from this new bridge location back to the center of the CB, you will not send the CB sailing past (to the outside) the farthest ball as would be diagrammed in a top view.
:smile::thumbup:
Last edited:
Perspective changes everything: the 180 degrees that are viewable of the CB, the vector through the center you're pivoting to, the orientation to the pocket.... sheesh...everything, really.
Whatever makes this click, it's based on the geometry of perception, NOT the geometry of a 2D diagram. Hal told me 7 years ago to stop wasting my time on a 2D forum diagram as it can't be shown. He's right.
Once everyone gets up to speed on how the variables are affected, we'll step closer to getting the mathematical proof the pool nerds want.
People probably look at these threads and think, "Gee that's complicated." The math is for sure..... execution-wise, it's as easy as Sunday morning.
Body pivot to apply english. That way the arm is stays with it's natural stroke direction.
Some tuck and roll, some do it with bridge hand and some already have the shaft off-angle when going down.
If this is where you are on this topic, I would respectfully suggest that you step back. Quickly.
Freddie
A fellow member mentioned F. Bustamante.
He is the exception to many rules not the primary example..
What works for him doesn't work for others.
Changing anything about your cue line after you take your stance might work for some too, but it's not recommended for the reasons I mentioned..
He is the exception to many rules not the primary example..
What works for him doesn't work for others.
Changing anything about your cue line after you take your stance might work for some too, but it's not recommended for the reasons I mentioned..
Hal had many systems. Stan learned from Hal but Hal never gave up the total package, just hints that Stan than took and developed pro-one. Stan always gives credit to Hal.