How Fractional Aiming Systems Help
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
Ok, so than every shot taken in pool is by feel. I don't think anyone can dispute that by this description. I also think that is a very broad description of feel. So lets leave cte out and you describe some adjustments for the shots in your original post.
im out, i just have clear a couple things up first
*Sigh* There comes a time when the pain-level threshold is reached, and one needs to grab the bull by the horns and do something to maintain one's own sanity.
"Oh great bit-bucket in the sky, please help me! You are my savior, /dev/null! Ode to the circular file!"
<Plonk!>
Not nearly as "broad" as describing those actions as "system instructions".
I did - in my first post and in my banking example post. The thing about adjusting by feel is that no step-by-step description of it is possible because we don't have access to our subconscious mind's workings (that's why it's called "feel"). In fact, that's the giveaway that CTE's "system instructions" are really adjustments by feel - they don't describe step-by-step actions, just vague concepts like "acquire the visual".
pj
chgo
So aim a little thinner, aim a little fatter, this is what your giving away?
P.S. Why do your responses always get around to bashing cte instruction's?
I have asked similar questions to PJ's after watching the DVD.... I think what those of us who question the system are looking for is the actual mechanics behind the adjustment that would be universal and not different for everyone.... Something concrete....
I am not a naysayer and at this point PJ is not a naysayer... we would just like an analytical breakdown of some of the movements that would allow anyone to pick the ball up and run with it......
I have zero doubt that many CTE/Pro1 users have improved... I have respect for Stan in trying to bring this system into the light of day... I just don't get it quite yet and going to watch the DVD 1 more time tonight.....
Champ tried to enlighten me with a PM and as soon as I saw he wanted me to switch eyes to pick up the different lines I realized that for some of us it may be the fact that we all don't seem to see the same that is getting in the way of a universal understanding and consensus....
If I have to swap eyes to pick up the lines I am likely done.... I would prefer not to be but I know for me at least it will not be a system I will understand because I cannot swap eyes and maintain any acuity of vision......
You keep saying CTE instructions are vague. Do you mean it is incomplete and/or unworkable? The steps are presented in very close detail, what isn't clear? I'll refer to the 1/2 ball pivot method, since we have access to that information. I'd like to know what is incomplete or unclear. Thanks.
Post whatever instructions you're thinking of and I'll be glad to point out where they're unclear.
pj
chgo
Acquiring the visual comes from applying the steps.
Following the steps teaches the mechanics.
If you define "feel" as subconscious adjustment then that covers everything.
it's like saying that the ball can never actually reach the rail because the atoms that comprise the rail never contact the atoms that comprise the ball because their energy fields repulse each other.
While true it's not practical.
Practical is having defined steps and getting the defined result.
So let's put feel on a spectrum:
From a guess based on nothing but pure instinct to visualizing a glowing line measured using objects at hand.
If we give those ends of the spectrum numbers like 1 for pure guessing and 10 for accurate measurment then we can put aiming systems on the scale for how much "feel" is really needed to aim.
I contend that all good systems are closer to 10 than to 1. And this is the practical application that helps shooters to achieve a higher level of consistency.
So yes, there is a degree of feel but it's inconsequential because it's so reduced as to not feel like guessing at all.
Now if after using the steps the subconscious mind snaps to the right line even for crazy shots that the shooter has not practiced at all then that's exactly the goal. No one needs to know or care that this is what's happening as long as it's happening.
So if after all this all you want is an admission that there is feel in aiming no matter what method is used then you can have it. Because nothing that a human does is 100% consistent and exact then there is feel. However humans are known to be able to follow directions and perform in a consistent manner.
They are also known to improve when shown a better method to do something. This is the basis of just about all improvements in performance in all sports. The vast leaps in understanding how to approach tasks have led to vast leaps in performance across the board in all human endeavor.
So I think it's silly to think that this doesn't apply to pool as well. Figuring out systematic ways to approach aiming leads to improved shotmaking and a huge reduction in, and in fact a practical elimination of, guessing where the shot line is.
When I started with Stan's DVD I had the same issues... I watched the DVD and watched again. And again. The clarity certainly wasn't immediate. However, taking the shots to the table and going through the motions... practicing the shots from the DVD. That is what made things clear, and it took some time. Then going back through the DVD with that experience behind me, things made much more sense. I think this is the biggest hang-up... so many people don't even try it because watching the DVD doesn't give them instant understanding they are looking for. The DVD gives you enough information to take the shots to the table and work the system out. If you seek complete clarity before even taking things to the table, I don't think that will happen. Not unless someone can uncover a method to teach this system in a new approach. Until then, you have to go to the table to "get" it, then analyze how it works.
Right here:
http://www.billiardsthegame.com/offset-and-pivot-aiming-systems-395
and thanks for the constructive input.
I don't "bash" CTE instructions; I describe them. I've said many times (even in this thread) that having feel as a necessary part of a system is not a drawback; it's just a fact. The fact that you think it's bashing just shows the oversensitivity CTE users have about any imagined slight against it.
I bring up CTE (I'm not the only one who does) because most here are familiar with it, and because the subject of feel vs. system mechanics automatically brings the CTE "controversy" to mind - it would be perverse not to talk about it.
pj
chgo
Go ahead:
http://www.billiardsthegame.com/offset-and-pivot-aiming-systems-395
The only part of this which involves guessing is the bridge distance and this works itself out in a short time on the table. A very short time.
Unless you plan to bring a ruler to the table there is no exact way to measure the exact placement of the bridge hand. So using any method that gets you super close without a ruler is as close to eliminating feel as humanly possible.
And that's what the best aiming systems do in my opinion.
My intention was indeed to take the shots to the table but I was stopped by my lack of understanding in some areas.... I was also working on Ekkes SEE system at the time as well so there may have been an added roadblock from that.... What seemed natural to me on one hand may have colored my view even darker on the other hand.... going to grab the DVD and rewatch it as soon as V for Vendetta is over....
Last thing tho....do you really have to swap eyes to pick up the lines?? If it's a resounding yes I may just rewatch V :wink:
I look at everything with my dominant eye. I don't know if this is the same for everyone.
I don’t have any trouble aiming at the infinite contact points on the OB from its center (straight in) to its edge (30 degrees). What I like about using a pivot system is that I can accomplish the same thing for cut angles greater than 30 degrees, where the spot to aim at is off of the edge of the OB and on the cloth or the rail behind the OB that is less discernable, while only aiming at spots on the OB.
So here is what I do for those shots greater than 30 degrees:
I look at the OB from behind the CB while standing and get my stance on the CTE line. Sometimes I verify that line with my cue pointed at the edge of the OB from the center of the CB.
I then look at the contact point on the OB that sends the OB to the pocket/target and study the distance from that point to the edge of the OB,
I then look at that same distance from the center of the OB (toward the same edge) and focus on that new spot on the OB.
As I drop down on the shot, I shift my cue to the side until it is pointed at that new spot without regard for the CB – looking through it as though it isn’t there.
I plant my bridge on the new line and then pivot from my bridge to the center of the CB and shoot.
There are no fractions or A, B or C. The contact points on the OB are infinite as are the corresponding points of aim from the center of the OB – the distance from the edge of the OB to the contact point is the same distance that I aim from the center of the OB and shift my cue from the CTE line to that new point on the OB.
The results may be a few angles different for someone else but they are repeatable and can be adjusted.
Just saying what I do.:thumbup:
So here is what I do for those shots greater than 30 degrees:
I look at the OB from behind the CB while standing and get my stance on the CTE line. Sometimes I verify that line with my cue pointed at the edge of the OB from the center of the CB.
I then look at the contact point on the OB that sends the OB to the pocket/target and study the distance from that point to the edge of the OB,
I then look at that same distance from the center of the OB (toward the same edge) and focus on that new spot on the OB.
As I drop down on the shot, I shift my cue to the side until it is pointed at that new spot without regard for the CB – looking through it as though it isn’t there.
I plant my bridge on the new line and then pivot from my bridge to the center of the CB and shoot.
There are no fractions or A, B or C. The contact points on the OB are infinite as are the corresponding points of aim from the center of the OB – the distance from the edge of the OB to the contact point is the same distance that I aim from the center of the OB and shift my cue from the CTE line to that new point on the OB.
The results may be a few angles different for someone else but they are repeatable and can be adjusted.
Just saying what I do.:thumbup:
I think what you are explaining is known as "double the distance" and that works great if you can see those invisible points of contact.
Here is a system I made up once, and it is related to Mosconi's "parallel mirror" system. It probably has a name, I don't know for sure.
* Find the point on the OB that sends the ball to the pocket.
* Find the point on the CB that needs to make contact with the OB point.
* Visualize the line between those points in your head, before you move into the shot.
* Now move into the shot with cue tip center cue ball, and shoot parallel to that line.
Last edited:
I usually avoid this discussion because everyone seems to take any discussion of an aiming system that they use as a personal attack on what they do. I think first of all it should be noted that if someone was born with a perfect and repeatable stroke that they used on every shot every time with no deviation the following would be true. If they had that perfect stroke the same every time they took a shot and used any aiming system they would not make evety shot from their very first shot going forward and be a ball pocketing machine that never missed. This is because every system requires adjustments gained from experience. I have tried cte and ghost ball and others and what works best for me may well not be what works best for you or anyone else and that is where a lot of this animous comes from. I would have to say that i basically use a method that most resembles ghost ball. when i approach a shot from standing behind the cue ball away from the table i visualize the line from the pocket through the object ball and a line from the cue ball to the point where the cue ball would sit directly on that line through the object ball just touching the object ball then lay the shaft of my stick on the line from the cue ball to that point then leaving my stick on that line i step into shooting position and place my bridge hand based on where my stick is oriented. For me this is best because it requires the least movement from the line of sight based on the initial standing visual therfore less variales to mess up. But other people for whatever reason may find it hard to find that visual for them the cte approach may work the best. One is not correct and the other incorrect just one works best for some and the other works best for others but all of them require time and practice and a lot of balls going in pockets.
Good post. Watch the dvd and try it at the table. It will come to you.
Just watch the dvd and try it at the table for a few days, than come back and ask questions.