How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

sfleinen said:
Sure, geometry-wise, the CTEL is always a mathematical constant -- a line drawn from the center of one ball, tangentially to the edge of the other ball, is always a constant. But ... the particular perception of that line *does* move
Click to expand...
And that's how I'd describe it. When described that way it becomes clear that the correct perspective for each particular shot isn't "locked in" by the system but chosen by the system user from the multiple perspectives that are possible for each combination of CTEline/aimpointline. In my terms each combination of CTEline/aimpointline is a "reference" from which the shooter "adjusts" his perspective to get to the final aimline.

pj
chgo
 
sfleinen said:
... as your head moves, so does your perception of the CTEL ...
Click to expand...
How one perceives a line in space can vary with the perspectives created by different head/eye positions. However, the degree of perception error will vary from person to person and with the amount the head is moved. When some people move their heads, they still might perceive the CTE line accurately (i.e., the perception of the line might not change with head position). For other people, the CTE line or the line of the shot might look totally different with different head positions.

For people who are interested, I have some good illustrations and demonstrations related to this topic, along with some supporting resources, here:

Placing one's "vision center" accurately and consistency is a very important part of both aiming and sighting. One value I see in many "aiming systems" is: the pre-shot routine they encourage might help foster consistent alignment.

Regards,
Dave
 
Patrick Johnson said:
If you have to move your eyes to see another edge of the OB, why doesn't the CB's center have to move to "see" the same thing? Can the CB's center see around corners?

The center-to-edge line (ctel) cannot "rotate" - this is geometry so basic that there's absolutely no question about it. Yet imaginary "rotating edges" have been one of the "go-to" excuses for fractional aiming "exactness" since the systems were first described. This kind of credibility gap is at the heart of much of the ongoing disagreement and acrimony.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Never said the CB's center wouldn't move.
Think about this. Your outside at night, full moon, you have a laser out of the center of your forehead pointed at the edge of the moon. What happens as the moon goes across the sky and you keep the laser on the edge of the moon? You may not think of this as the ctel rotating but I do. Either way do you see what I'm getting at.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
And that's how I'd describe it. When described that way it becomes clear that the correct perspective for each particular shot isn't "locked in" by the system but chosen by the system user from the multiple perspectives that are possible for each combination of CTEline/aimpointline. In my terms each combination of CTEline/aimpointline is a "reference" from which the shooter "adjusts" his perspective to get to the final aimline.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Or to put it another way the choice of reference combinations directs the shooter to the shot line.

Knowing that shot 1 is an AB reference and walking in accordingly not feel. That's simply experience gained through knowledge and practice.

The knowledge is that someone somewhere figured out that shots 1-10 are AB lines and shots 20-30 are CB lines etc..... they figured it out and passed the knowledge on and whoever gets the knowledge can test it and practice with it until looking at any shot instantly recalls the right reference lines which then orients the body which then responds by getting down on the right shot line.

And IF a shot comes up for which the shooter has no idea due to not practicing that particular shot then he has a set amount of reference combinations to pick from where it will usually be apparent which ones are wrong for that shot and which one "looks about right". Thus having picked the one that looks about right the shooter can follow the directions as he does for every other shot and shoot with a pretty good degree of confidence that the right shot line was found.

And in real games that is exactly how it plays out.

And THIS is one very tangible benefit to knowing a good aiming system.
 
dr_dave said:
How one perceives a line in space can vary with the perspectives created by different head/eye positions. However, the degree of perception error will vary from person to person and with the amount the head is moved. When some people move their heads, they still might perceive the CTE line accurately (i.e., the perception of the line might not change with head position). For other people, the CTE line or the line of the shot might look totally different with different head positions.

For people who are interested, I have some good illustrations and demonstrations related to this topic, along with some supporting resources, here:

Placing one's "vision center" accurately and consistency is a very important part of both aiming and sighting. One value I see in many "aiming systems" is: the pre-shot routine they encourage might help foster consistent alignment.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

And this is why we have reference lines. One value I see in cte is an easy, repeatable sight picture leading to proper alignment to make the OB center pocket.
 
cookie man said:
Never said the CB's center wouldn't move.
Think about this. Your outside at night, full moon, you have a laser out of the center of your forehead pointed at the edge of the moon. What happens as the moon goes across the sky and you keep the laser on the edge of the moon? You may not think of this as the ctel rotating but I do. Either way do you see what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

To be honest, this isn't a fair analogy. A fair(er) analogy is if you are standing behind the guy looking at the moon, directly in line with the laser beam. Now if you move left or right, the laser is no longer in line. However, if you switch which eye looks down the line then there are two positions where the laser looks right (or the CTEL looks right in the context of a CB/OB.) I don't switch eyeballs, I use my dominant eye for all alignments. This is possibly where perceptions of the system could differ from one person to the next.
 
SJDinPHX said:
You hard core group of ASS guy's can rant on and on, (as per this thread) about the marvels of aiming systems. It must be frustrating for you all, that try as you might, you still can't beat the old, amateur Lou, or a REALLY old has been (like me)...at an actual, real live game of pool...Especially a game like one pocket, where you have to do a little more than just "pivot" your brains out, and worry about where your eyeballs are.

The game requires the "touch" and "feel" that all of you are searching in vain for... It just seems strange, to see grown men so infatuated with a concept that you can't even explain it to each other...Wouldn't it be more productive, to constantly argue about how all the Pro's, now touting "aiming systems" actually ALL learned the old fashioned (million ball) way", and also had natural talent, from the womb.

But thats OK, if you really 'master' one of the 40 or 50 "secrets of aiming"... you MAY actually be able to accurately pocket the LAST ball on the table. Providing of course, it's not a 'scratch shot'...as I don't see where thats covered in your "lessons"

PS..You might check with m'bud, JoeyA..He's tried all 50 of 'em,...and he STILL can't beat Lou..;)
Click to expand...

Excellent points, SJD. You'd think that with their profound knowledge of aiming systems, that even players like Joey and JB could now take on SVB and other professional players. All they need to do is just aim and fire that ball into the pocket like a guided missile. :rolleyes:

Could it be that maybe there is more to playing pool at a higher level than just aiming? Could it be that simpler aiming systems like DAM are just as good, if not better, than some of those more complicated aiming systems?
 
Neil said:
The way it is described is just fine. What isn't fine is all the other info that you keep bringing into it and contaminating it and then complaining that it doesn't work right.
Click to expand...
I don't complain that "it doesn't work right". I point out that it isn't described the way it actually works, and that puts off some of the more analytically minded potential users (like me).

I'd like to figure out a way to "bring this other info in" to make it accessible to the analytically minded without "contaminating" it for you. That's part of what I'm hoping to work on with this thread.

pj
chgo
 
dr_dave said:
How one perceives a line in space can vary with the perspectives created by different head/eye positions. However, the degree of perception error will vary from person to person and with the amount the head is moved. When some people move their heads, they still might perceive the CTE line accurately (i.e., the perception of the line might not change with head position). For other people, the CTE line or the line of the shot might look totally different with different head positions.

For people who are interested, I have some good illustrations and demonstrations related to this topic, along with some supporting resources, here:

Placing one's "vision center" accurately and consistency is a very important part of both aiming and sighting. One value I see in many "aiming systems" is: the pre-shot routine they encourage might help foster consistent alignment.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

I agree. I think what is coming out here, is that there's a very SUBJECTIVE aspect to what's supposed to be a "physical, tangible thing" -- i.e. the CTEL (vs. trying to picture a non-existent ghostball or contact point on the object ball, which have never been argued about being subjective in nature) There's enough subjectiveness of the CTEL, that it can be said there's "visual 'feel'" required to use it. One person's perception of the CTEL is not the same as another person's -- for reasons of eye dominance, head/eye position, etc.

I'm a firm believer in the establishment of solid fundamentals to make sure the vision center is where it needs to be to ensure consistent, accurate visualization -- whether that be the CTEL, a contact point on the object ball, fractional aiming (my particular term for this is "eclipsing" -- because of the low chin-on-the-cue sighting method), or what-have-you.

The CTEL, although a good reference, is not a "concrete" infallible thing. Its accuracy is entirely dependent upon the person visualizing/perceiving it.

-Sean
 
JB Cases said:
...the choice of reference combinations directs the shooter to the shot line.
Click to expand...
But each reference combination is used for multiple shots and cut angles, so I'd say "directs the shooter to a narrowed range of possible shot lines from which to choose one based on experience."

pj
chgo
 
sfleinen said:
I agree. I think what is coming out here, is that there's a very SUBJECTIVE aspect to what's supposed to be a "physical, tangible thing" -- i.e. the CTEL (vs. trying to picture a non-existent ghostball or contact point on the object ball, which have never been argued about being subjective in nature) There's enough subjectiveness of the CTEL, that it can be said there's "visual 'feel'" required to use it. One person's perception of the CTEL is not the same as another person's -- for reasons of eye dominance, head/eye position, etc.

I'm a firm believer in the establishment of solid fundamentals to make sure the vision center is where it needs to be to ensure consistent, accurate visualization -- whether that be the CTEL, a contact point on the object ball, fractional aiming (my particular term for this is "eclipsing" -- because of the low chin-on-the-cue sighting method), or what-have-you.

The CTEL, although a good reference, is not a "concrete" infallible thing. Its accuracy is entirely dependent upon the person visualizing/perceiving it.

-Sean
Click to expand...

The CTEL is the most concrete reference line between two balls. It's as concrete as it's twin sister: the center to center line. Both are the only two alignments based on definitive points. The edges of a sphere (at the equator) and the top/bottom (center) of the sphere are the only definitive, objective reference points. Therefore, it's an infallible reference line.

Now, if someone says they move their eyes to get a new CTEL--- they're really saying they have a new view of it (parallax). If you move your eyes a LITTLE to the side, you might see a new edge to the OB, but you also have a new 180 degree view of the CB. That's what's meant with "rotating edges."

I just wanted to clear that up. Regardless if a player uses CTE/Pro1, 90/90, ghost ball or whatever---- the CTEL is one of the most fundamental reference lines in pool/aiming.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The CTEL is the most concrete reference line between two balls. It's as concrete as it's twin sister: the center to center line. Both are the only two alignments based on definitive points. The edges of a sphere (at the equator) and the top/bottom (center) of the sphere are the only definitive reference points. Therefore, it's an infallible reference line.

...

Regardless if a player uses CTE/Pro1, 90/90, ghost ball or whatever---- the CTEL is one of the most fundamental reference lines in pool/aiming.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is why I want to "expand the market" for these alignment landmarks.

pj
chgo
 
SpiderWebComm said:
The CTEL is the most concrete reference line between two balls. It's as concrete as it's twin sister: the center to center line. Both are the only two alignments based on definitive points. The edges of a sphere (at the equator) and the top/bottom (center) of the sphere are the only definitive reference points. Therefore, it's an infallible reference line.

Now, if someone says they move their eyes to get a new CTEL--- they're really saying they have a new view of it (parallax). If you move your eyes a LITTLE to the side, you might see a new edge to the OB, but you also have a new 180 degree view of the CB. That's what's meant with "rotating edges."

I just wanted to clear that up. Regardless if a player uses CTE/Pro1, 90/90, ghost ball or whatever---- the CTEL is one of the most fundamental reference lines in pool/aiming.
Click to expand...

Dave:

Good stuff! I think I mentioned that in my response to PJ, that we're dealing with spherical objects afterall. (I think using the table surface is a good control, so that people know when you move your head, table surface that was formerly covered by the edge of the ball, is now visible to you -- so the CTEL has definitely "moved for you.")

While it's mathematically a constant, however, it *does* move with perception. It's not like, for example, where the two balls touch the cloth -- that point (and the line that connects them) NEVER moves, until the balls are placed in motion. If we compare the CTEL to the line drawn between where the two balls are touching the cloth, we can see that the CTEL "can" rotate around the ball it's tangential to, but the place where the balls touch the cloth never moves, no matter which way we orient our head.

But the line drawn between where the two balls touch the cloth is pretty much useless to us, all but for straight-in shots. The CTEL is much more useful, as long as we're perceiving it correctly.

Do you agree?
-Sean
 
Actually, IF one were to use the aiming system and THEN put in the 5000 shots a week like Shane then one could challenge Shane and any other pro on equal footing. Any idiot who makes such a stupid statement as to say that those who use aiming systems ought to be able to challenge the pros is merely a stupid troll who adds no value to the discussion in any direction.

And the other issue is that the discussion of these aiming methods makes them seem much more complicated than they actually are. In practice on the table they are dead simple once learned.
 
Neil said:
And, you bringing other stuff into it is exactly why you will never understand it. But, you just go ahead and keep pounding your head against the wall trying to make sense of it your way. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
If you'd get past your kneejerk combativeness and try to understand some of "this other stuff" you might get something out of this conversation too. OK with me if you don't, but you're the "naysayer" in this thread, Neil.

pj <- ashamed of myself for bringing the n-word into it
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top