How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

[The Renfro]

Years ago an old man showed me a pivot based system that was based on halfball pivots to establish bridge lengths and then learning adjustments by cutting the pivots in half.... No secondary aim lines just the aim and pivot and adjustment..... Establish the pivot length needed to go from center to half ball and repeat the same pivot and you were cutting em as thin as the backing on the old magic rack....

I still use this system for some shots and I have to think some of it's basis has to be akin to CTE.....

I have also been studying Ekkes stuff and having shadows as well as edges give me pretty easy pivots to perform until we get to the thin stuff where you end up pivoting from a tip or tip and a half outside of the cue ball's edge....

I could more readily demonstrate the old pivot system to someone than I can show them anything from the SEE system.... It all ends up coming down to table time in the end but some of us like exact directions from point A to point B....

At this point I went thru the DVD again and certain areas are still indeed vague to me.... I think at this point I have only one option and I am calling Stan tomorrow to see about heading over first spot he has open....

Hopefully face to face will allow us to find a common dialect for me to understand... One of the main things I learned long ago in my job is that even tho we all speak English sometimes it's all about the choice of words that makes all of the difference.....

I think Mark Twain was the one that said something along the line of the choice of words is all that separates the lightning bug from a lightning bolt...

I think until I can get to the horses mouth I'll stay out of anything CTE/Pro1 related..... SEE, Normal Fractional, Spot on the table... Ghostball... Double the distance.... Smalll ball.. Pivot based fractional and parallel aiming I am well versed in and can argue....

 

[AtLarge]

... It's not feel, not experience. It's a prescribed set of steps that leads to the player settling in on the shot line. ...

From reading your post, I would have to say that you don't use CTE. See the part I put in red? You aren't understanding what that means at all, which tells me you don't use it. You surely don't understand it.

The same visuals means that you are still using the edge and the A,B or C line. Different eye positions means that when you move one of the balls, or both of them, you now have a different edge and a different A,B,C line. THAT is what gives you all the angles. You aren't moving your head around to see the angles differently, the visuals change means that where the edge and the other lines contact the ob changes with changes in the balls position.

Is this groundhog day? Have you guys forgotten everything we all went through a year ago to arrive at an understanding of how the the fairly small number of reference alignments or alignment-menu choices in Stan's CTE are used to produce the large number of cut angles needed to play proficiently?

Stan gave us the answer -- it is different eye positions. And one learns how to choose the proper eye position (within a particular alignment-menu choice) from experience, or visual intelligence, or experience-based knowledge gained from using the method. But Stan resists calling this "feel," because to him and other highly experienced users of the method the choice of the eye position becomes automatic or objective, certainly not guesswork.

Here is the thread where Stan talked about the need for different eye positions within a single reference alignment (such as the one I stated in post #115 of this thread): http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=217512. The thread is quite long. You can skip to the discussions on the afternoon of 4/14/2011 and the next day (post 923+) to get to the key parts that involved Stan. My post #115 in this current thread, is drawn from this post back then: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2965604&postcount=1003. [Incidentally, some of the cited post numbers in that thread no longer line up with the intended posts; I guess some posts were deleted by the powers that be for unknown misdemeanors.]

And Neil, whether or not CTE is my own personal aiming method is irrelevant; one's use of any particular aiming method does not disqualify him from analyzing and discussing other aiming methods. Apparently you now think I'm ignorant about CTE. Go back and read last year's thread referenced above (and other CTE-related threads from that time frame) and see if you still feel that way.

 

[AtLarge]

if your using an outside pivot on an A shot, there are multiple eye positions used before you need to switch to an inside A pivot and that continues all the way to a 1/8 shot. All these multiple eye positions lead the body into a shot in a uniquely different position, which sometimes are unnoticeable to the shooter. Now when you see a shot and its an outside A and shoot it and then you get another outside A shot slightly different. Now you make the second shot with the exact same set up as the first shot only a different eye position has set you up in a uniquely different physical position on a slightly different aim line. This is what gives people the illusion that only six angles can make all shots. This is why Stan says cte/pro1 is a very strong "visual" system and not a fractional system but once upon a time it could have been used as a template or starting point? I am trying to keep this basic here also so you can catch on.

Now the ultimate goal of the system in my eyes, is to end up just seeing the shot and this is the short cut cte/pro1 will do with its psr, visual and physical alignments and yes you will need to shot a lot of balls to get there.

i gotta go now but good luck.

champ -- nice post!

 

[AtLarge]

... 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.

mohrt -- that's contact-point-to-contact-point aiming, a geometrically sound, continuous (as opposed to discrete) method. Even more simply stated: find the intended contact point on the OB and aim to hit it with the equal but opposite point on the CB.

 

[AtLarge]

You stuck on CTE too. Thread is about fractional aiming, any links for that?

More generally, I think we can view the thread as how one actually starts with any discrete aiming method/prescription (that would yield a limited number of cut angles if followed robotically) and is able to achieve a much larger number of cut angles in actual practice. That topic should certainly include CTE.

 

[SJDinPHX]

Welcome back from your sabbaticle Patrick. Let me say that JoeyA, and John Barton, have filled in admirably, in your absence.....I see you are approaching 200 posts, with your first aiming thread...It is exciting watching you do verbal warfare, with your same adversaries, who seem to have missed you...:boring2:

I must say, its good that you have the same 2 or 3 antagonists/experts/ASS guy's, to carry on your "debates" with... It is a shame, that you and your thinning group of 'yeasayer's', are speaking a language that NO normal person..(AKA 'naysayer') can, nor want, to comprehend..Otherwise, we'd be glad to help out..

EXAMPLE;....If your using an outside pivot on an A shot, there are multiple eye positions used before you need to
switch to an inside A pivot and that continues all the way to a 1/8 shot. All these multiple eye positions lead the body into a shot in a uniquely different position, which sometimes are unnoticeable to the shooter,(?) when you see a shot and its an outside A and shoot it and then you get another outside A shot slightly different...Now I am trying to keep this basic here also so you can catch on.....................WTF ??????

Before you incur the wrath of the 98% of the NORMAL membership..AGAIN.. you may consider starting your own forum, PLEASE !!! No one wants to try and understand your language, as we all know, that you CANNOT teach ANYONE HOW TO AIM..At least not well enough to progress beyond an APA 3.

The necessary ingredients, to reach a HIGH level at pool..are still...HAND/EYE COORDINATION..FEEL..NATURAL TALENT, and a lot of dedicated PRACTICE, or PLAYING..(AKA million ball theory)..Also, a generous dose of common sense will help.....Nothing has changed in your absense..Still NO shortcuts to "pool nirvana"...But, welcome back anyway, I guess...

 

[AtLarge]

Welcome back from your sabbaticle Patrick. ... It is a shame, that you and your thinning group of 'yeasayer's', are speaking a language that NO normal person..(AKA 'naysayer') can, nor want, to comprehend..Otherwise, we'd be glad to help out.. ...

Am I reading this correctly -- pj is being called a yeasayer????? What will JoeyA say!

 

[The Renfro]

Am I reading this correctly -- pj is being called a yeasayer????? What will JoeyA say!

PJ has admitted that he is a yeasayer to the system... Many players have benefited from the system and he has acknowledged as much...

What he seeks is the same thing that I seek... The missing info or the info that failed to translate well in the DVD....... The questions he asks are relevant but to this point there is no concrete answer that has not been gained by CTE users except thru table time... The issue is that none of them seem to have the same answer and if that's the true case the case will be closed... CTE will not be the be all or end all of aiming systems but it will have it's place among all of the other systems out there.......

I think PJ and I seek the same thing... We want a geometrically correct system not requiring estimation before it gets out blessing as the holy grail... I have yet to even glimpse the grail after 25+ years... so to profess that you have found it and it works regardless of the science that says it cannot work without feel and estimation tends to put some part of us on tilt...... It's akin to watching someone light a fire with flint and steel... and while it works you know enough to understand that's not the end of the road..... someone is coming with a match or a zippo and that is what we await.......

 

[AtLarge]

... I think PJ and I seek the same thing... We want a geometrically correct system not requiring estimation before it gets out blessing as the holy grail ...

I think pj and most of the rest of us already know of a couple geometrically correct aiming methods, but that doesn't make them the holy grail or even the preferred method for everyone. And, I trust that most of the talk of CTE as the holy grail is behind us, too. There are many different ways to aim. It's fun to learn about them all and to find one or two that seem to suit each of us well.

 

[The Renfro]

I think pj and most of the rest of us already know of a couple geometrically correct aiming methods, but that doesn't make them the holy grail or even the preferred method for everyone. And, I trust that most of the talk of CTE as the holy grail is behind us, too. There are many different ways to aim. It's fun to learn about them all and to find one or two that seem to suit each of us well.

Give me just one and I'll sell my soul to the devil..... Distances change everything... The grail will be a hybrid of many systems and it has yet to be found... rolling ball sure... SEE handles all angles but english changes everything..... Add CIT and SIT and none will meet the geometric tests... CTE from my understanding is the same.. Rotation nullifies everything base...

BHE is a tool to correct but It is hazardous as well.... name the geometric non-fall able system and I will concede to be it;s next disciple.....

Most tests to this point involve the pendulum...... Not only does english change everything but attack angle does as well.... There is huge difference between reality and tests done in vacuum....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think PJ and I seek the same thing... We want a geometrically correct system not requiring estimation

Actually, I don't want any aiming system for myself - I aim OK by feel (and improve with each ball I hit).

I'm just trying to dispell the myths about how systems work so conversation about them can be positive and productive. It gets better each time we cycle through, but it's a slow grind.

pj
chgo

 

[barking]

huh

refining the shot within these aiming systems by feel sounds like what i do, but i dont know any aiming systems. all feel and really repeatable too.
never could figure out what anyone meant when discussing the particulars of these systems. sounds too vague to me. maybe im just a dumbass or somthing lol.

 

[barking]

just find the contact point on the ob directly opposite where you want it to go and let it roll. in some fashion lol

 

[cookie man]

Is this groundhog day? Have you guys forgotten everything we all went through a year ago to arrive at an understanding of how the the fairly small number of reference alignments or alignment-menu choices in Stan's CTE are used to produce the large number of cut angles needed to play proficiently?

Stan gave us the answer -- it is different eye positions. And one learns how to choose the proper eye position (within a particular alignment-menu choice) from experience, or visual intelligence, or experience-based knowledge gained from using the method. But Stan resists calling this "feel," because to him and other highly experienced users of the method the choice of the eye position becomes automatic or objective, certainly not guesswork.

Here is the thread where Stan talked about the need for different eye positions within a single reference alignment (such as the one I stated in post #115 of this thread): http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=217512. The thread is quite long. You can skip to the discussions on the afternoon of 4/14/2011 and the next day (post 923+) to get to the key parts that involved Stan. My post #115 in this current thread, is drawn from this post back then: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2965604&postcount=1003. [Incidentally, some of the cited post numbers in that thread no longer line up with the intended posts; I guess some posts were deleted by the powers that be for unknown misdemeanors.]

And Neil, whether or not CTE is my own personal aiming method is irrelevant; one's use of any particular aiming method does not disqualify him from analyzing and discussing other aiming methods. Apparently you now think I'm ignorant about CTE. Go back and read last year's thread referenced above (and other CTE-related threads from that time frame) and see if you still feel that way.

Stan says different visuals not different eye position and there is a big difference in the understanding here. Your referring we have to use different eyes (left or right ) for different set-ups and thats not true. Neil is right you don't have the understanding of cte down to perfection.

When Stan talks about different visuals and eye positions it's in direct relationship to the intended pocket.

 

[cookie man]

You clearly state that there are only 3 kinds of alignment: thick, thin and very thin. You only describe one way to aim for each of those (assuming the CB and OB are the same distance apart). So to make the thick cut shown on your diagram (copied below) and to make another thick cut with the CB/OB moved 18 inches farther from the pocket (but still the same distance apart), you'd use the same precise alignments and movements - and the OB would hit the rail 18 inches from the pocket.

Where are the specific instructions that tell you how to change your aim for these two shots? It isn't in the pivot because that only changes when CB/OB distance changes.

This is what is meant when people say that fractional systems don't define enough cut angles to make all shots.


No prob.

pj
chgo

View attachment 220062

What would you change after the balls are moved to then make the shot? I'm serious with the question because something is being lost in the translation ( we aren't wording things right apparently ).

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[JoeyA]

Welcome back from your sabbaticle Patrick. Let me say that JoeyA, and John Barton, have filled in admirably, in your absence.....I see you are approaching 200 posts, with your first aiming thread...It is exciting watching you do verbal warfare, with your same adversaries, who seem to have missed you...:boring2:

I must say, its good that you have the same 2 or 3 antagonists/experts/ASS guy's, to carry on your "debates" with... It is a shame, that you and your thinning group of 'yeasayer's', are speaking a language that NO normal person..(AKA 'naysayer') can, nor want, to comprehend..Otherwise, we'd be glad to help out..



Before you incur the wrath of the 98% of the NORMAL membership..AGAIN.. you may consider starting your own forum, PLEASE !!! No one wants to try and understand your language, as we all know, that you CANNOT teach ANYONE HOW TO AIM..At least not well enough to progress beyond an APA 3.

The necessary ingredients, to reach a HIGH level at pool..are still...HAND/EYE COORDINATION..FEEL..NATURAL TALENT, and a lot of dedicated PRACTICE, or PLAYING..(AKA million ball theory)..Also, a generous dose of common sense will help.....Nothing has changed in your absense..Still NO shortcuts to "pool nirvana"...But, welcome back anyway, I guess...

Dick,

You need to leave these threads alone. You're not helping things.

CTE/Pro1 is like a Tsunami. It keeps coming, wave after unstoppable wave. New disciples are being born every minute. You can't stop a Tsunami.

Now instead of drowning under the wash of the Tsunami, just substitute it for some Yukon Jack and you will be all right.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
Stan specifically said that "feel" is not the same as experience.

How does Stan (or you) say aiming by feel is learned?

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[mohrt]

Where are the "prescriptive instructions" that get me from pre-pivot reference line to cut angle?

I have done my best to make that clear in the article. Instead of repeating them here, maybe you can point out what part or parts are not clear?

If I have to learn to complete the aiming process through practice and repetition, how is that different from learning to complete it by "feel"?

pj
chgo

These are good questions. I think the reason that many CTE users are reluctant to say "CTE has feel" is because there are different interpretations to what "feel" means when it comes to pool. John Barton already said quite a bit in an earlier post, I thought it was very insightful information.

So if someone says "CTE has feel", that might get interpreted as some sort of conscious guessing/estimating happening during the shot process. But, that isn't what happens. You can define the system in a very mechanical way: You decide on a pre-pivot reference depending on the given CB/OB/pocket relation. You line up on the reference, then in one continuous motion you slide into the shot at a pre-pivot cue tip position on the cue ball. Then you pivot to center cue ball, and you are on the shot. Now, I'm sure there are all sorts of subconscious things happening during these steps to make them consistently land on the shot line. Exactly what they are is what we all want to know. But what we DO know is that practice does get everything working.

I believe CTE minimizes the guessing part of the equation, to a subconscious level. There will ALWAYS be feel/adjustment at some level with anything in pool, as we are all humans, not robots. We all have our inconsistencies, as does the equipment we play on. The goal is to minimize the guessing and maximize the consistency. Objective targets are a good way to do this, and that is what makes CTE such a strong system. I don't think CTE is the holy grail, as it may not work any better than aiming system XYZ for everyone.