How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

Patrick Johnson said:
My first post explains clearly how I think fractional aiming systems make "estimation" easier. If you can offer a clear explanation of how you think they work without estimation, that would probably be useful information too.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Any fixed starting point makes estimation easier if one is estimating to find a spot to put the bridge hand down.

Fixed starting points also make measuring easier.

Fixed starting points also allow for the shooter to follow a prescription without estimation to get to a line.

Fractional Aiming as described by Steve Davis is the use of the quarter ball overlap, half ball overlap and 3/4 ball overlap. Steve maintains that all shots fall into one of these categories or just slightly in-between. I.e. if a shot is 3/4 full but just slightly thinner then this is where estimation and experience come into it after starting with the 3/4 ball overlap.

So yes, in this sense and using that fractional method the estimation is finely honed by starting with just three approaches to choose from.

For some other methods though the aiming is not really reliant on estimation. Using those methods it's primarily prescription that gets the shooter to the shot line. A lot of shots, especially at the beginning of learning to use these methods, are shot in-the-blind, meaning that the shooter does not know if they are on the right line or not and is trusting the line that the method gave back.

Instead of missing by a diamond they either make the ball or miss it very closely. It is the opposite of estimation in my opinion.
 
Me:
All fractional aiming systems (even those with added steps like "pivots") have the same limitation: not enough defined "system cuts" to cover all shots.
Click to expand...
Neil:
You can not lump all fractional aiming systems into one neat little diagram and say they are all the same. They aren't. Not by a long shot.
Click to expand...
Me:
...describe a fractional system that's different in this respect.
Click to expand...
Neil:
Joe Tuckers. He has it broken down into many more "lines" than the one you diagrammed.
Click to expand...
No, he doesn't - his numbered balls define about the same number of "lines" (five or six per 90-degree "shooting range"). And Joe's system isn't a fractional system. It doesn't describe fractional overlaps of the CB/OB, but instead adds evenly-spaced numbers around the CB/OB equators to assist the shooter in visualizing corresponding contact points on the CB/OB.

But even with this difference, Joe's system works the same way I describe fractional systems working: his numbered contact points are too few to define enough "system cuts" for all shots, and estimation is required to aim the majority of shots that fall between them. I like Joe's system because he freely admits this limitation, making it that much more clear and useful to his students.

Do you have any idea how many cut angles are needed to make all shots? To make a spot shot into a 4.5-inch pocket from all possible CB angles requires about 25 system cuts. No fractional system that I'm aware of comes close to that many.

pj
chgo
 
An 1 1/8 inch is driving a lot of guys f#$%^&@G goofy.
The more you practice the better you aim, system or NO SYSTEM.

Dale
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Do you have any idea how many cut angles are needed to make all shots? To make a spot shot into a 4.5-inch pocket from all possible CB angles requires about 25 system cuts. No fractional system that I'm aware of comes close to that many.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

While true this is misleading.

Using Hal's overlap method for example the shot line is derived from a visual alignment starting with the cue ball to the object ball for each shot.

So each shot has a distinct cut angle that is given back by the system in use. It does not matter than shot 1 is a very different angle then shot 18.

The use of the method puts the shooter on the right shot line regardless of the ball positions. So all other cue ball positions relative to the fixed object ball are not relevant to the actual shot at hand.
 
JB Cases said:
Any fixed starting point makes estimation easier if one is estimating to find a spot to put the bridge hand down.

Fixed starting points also make measuring easier.
Click to expand...
I agree with both these statements. Fixed starting points that are close to the finished aim line are even better.

Fixed starting points also allow for the shooter to follow a prescription without estimation to get to a line.
Click to expand...
A fixed starting point gets you to the fixed starting point without estimation, not to the final aim line.

So yes, in this sense and using that fractional method the estimation is finely honed by starting with just three approaches to choose from.

For some other methods though the aiming is not really reliant on estimation.
Click to expand...
Let's take your favorite system for example. CTE is another fractional system that relies on estimation to complete the aiming process. It even uses the same fractions of the OB (full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, thin) to define the fixed starting points.

What CTE does differently is propose specific steps for the estimation part of the process, but it doesn't eliminate or even reduce the estimation. "Acquire the visual" (position your eyes somewhere between two fixed starting points) and "pivot" (place your stick on the necessary aim line) are system instructions that might sound kind of specific if you don't look too closely at them, but are actually so vague that the only thing they do clearly is mark the place where the system ends and the estimating begins.

pj
chgo
 
Me:
To make a spot shot into a 4.5-inch pocket from all possible CB angles requires about 25 system cuts. No fractional system that I'm aware of comes close to that many.
Click to expand...
John:
Using Hal's overlap method for example the shot line is derived from a visual alignment starting with the cue ball to the object ball for each shot.
Click to expand...
What "visual alignment"? How is the shot line "derived"?

So each shot has a distinct cut angle that is given back by the system in use.
Click to expand...
How is a shot's distinct cut angle "given back by the system"? What do those words even mean?

The use of the method puts the shooter on the right shot line regardless of the ball positions.
Click to expand...
Saying it doesn't make it so, John. Describe how.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I agree with both these statements. Fixed starting points that are close to the finished aim line are even better.


A fixed starting point gets you to the fixed starting point without estimation, not to the final aim line.


Let's take your favorite system for example. CTE is another fractional system that relies on estimation to complete the aiming process. It even uses the same fractions of the OB (full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, thin) to define the fixed starting points.

What CTE does differently is propose specific steps for the estimation part of the process, but it doesn't eliminate or even reduce the estimation. "Acquire the visual" (position your eyes somewhere between two fixed starting points) and "pivot" (place your stick on the necessary aim line) are system instructions that might sound kind of specific if you don't look too closely at them, but are actually so vague that the only thing they do clearly is mark the place where the system ends and the estimating begins.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

the estimation your talking about takes place at the very earliest part of the pre shot routine in cte/pro1. possibly even before you look for any lines. Now when talking about cte you need to be specific about what system your talking about because there are differences in cte systems and can someone quote this so the genius can see it.
 
Neil said:
..please stop stating things as proven fact that are wrong.
Click to expand...
Please explain how they're wrong.

There are people on here that are beginners, and are trying to learn. Please do your best to help them, not lead them astray.
Click to expand...
I think most people on here can decide for themselves whether my description of fractional aiming systems makes sense or not. Since you're offering nothing but "is not!", I guess they won't be able to do the same with your ideas (whatever they may be).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
champ2107 said:
the estimation your talking about takes place at the very earliest part of the pre shot routine in cte/pro1. Possibly even before you look for any lines. Now when talking about cte you need to be specific about what system your talking about because there are differences in cte systems and can someone quote this so the genius can see it.
Click to expand...

okay...............
 
champ2107 said:
the estimation your talking about takes place at the very earliest part of the pre shot routine in cte/pro1. possibly even before you look for any lines. Now when talking about cte you need to be specific about what system your talking about because there are differences in cte systems and can someone quote this so the genius can see it.
Click to expand...
I see you (for now). That doesn't mean I'll respond to every post you make. This one at least makes a clear and definite claim, so...

The estimation I'm talking about is the estimation that gets you to the final aim. If it took place before using the system you wouldn't need the system.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I see you (for now). That doesn't mean I'll respond to every post you make. This one at least makes a clear and definite claim, so...

The estimation I'm talking about is the estimation that gets you to the final aim. If it took place before using the system you wouldn't need the system.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You think this system is something like you just step up to the ball find 2 lines pivot and shoot. Its not like that once you really learn it. The cte/pro1 system starts the first time you step up to the table and doesn't end until the game is over, this is a bit hard to explain and may sound dumb to you. Once i make a shot and im on to the next one, im in my pre shot routine before i even get to the ball or even to the correct side of the table. This is a system like no other i believe anyway, with its completeness.

Now do you still have the dvd and were you able to finally understand the visuals of it? i can very easily turn you into a yeasayer if you like, but if you prefer to stay on that side of the debate, you will never be talking from experience.
 
Last edited:
champ2107 said:
The cte/pro1 system starts the first time you step up to the table and doesn't end until the game is over
Click to expand...
This is a very specific discussion about how to get from imprecise "system cuts" to precise final aim lines. Vague notions of CTE's "comprehensiveness" aren't useful here.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
This is a very specific discussion about how to get from imprecise "system cuts" to precise final aim lines. Vague notions of CTE's "comprehensiveness" aren't useful here.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

lol, steer clear is a good move on your part :thumbup: i will show your buddy nick tonight how to pocket a ball using cte/pro1 with me blocking his view to the pocket :) you guys always bring up cte, even though you dont know how to use it and then run away when the going gets tough.
 
Last edited:
champ2107 said:
lol, steer clear is a good move on your part :thumbup: i will show your buddy nick tonight how to pocket a ball using cte/pro1 with me blocking his view to the pocket :) you guys always bring up cte, even though you dont know how to use it and then run away when the going gets tough.
Click to expand...
I missed that "going gets tough" part. In fact, I missed the part where you do anything but make vague claims and get combative.

Bye again.

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top