How Fractional Aiming Systems Help

dr_dave said:
Ditto! :frown:

I still hope we can have an intelligent and mature discussion related to the important questions brought up.

Continually disappointed by the level of maturity in this thread,
Dave
Click to expand...

Right now the problems is as it always has been. Post the 15 shots and how you would shoot them using cte so Stan can review and explain. You won't because you now too little about cte to ever do that. All you, Pj, and Lou have are thoughts on why it can't work. You can't explain why it might not. You guys continue to carry on a fake argument about something you have very little knowledge on. Post the shots and explain how to shoot them with cte. Post or go home, just like gambling.
 
champ2107 said:
1.) Can two different alignments and pivots be used to pocket the same shot (e.g., for a cut angle where a slightly thicker cut would suggest one alignment/pivot choice and a slightly thinner cut would suggest a different alignment/pivot choice)?

The answer to this is yes for some shots and i do this sometimes on purpose.

2.) If a single alignment/pivot selection can be used to pocket shots over a range of cut angles, what does the shooter do differently to achieve the different cut angles required within the range of shots?

I have said cte/pro1 takes away as much feel (guesswork) as possible and is not a 100% free of feel for over a year or two now! Every time a ball or both balls move, you will have a new ctel and the aim line and that means you will move in at a different positions. With experience you will get a very good grasp of the cb,ob and the pocket and the better you get and the more you understand the system the more you will start seeing the shot or feeling the shot (i put that in for you guys ;)) this is how i can make any shot on the table including dr daves famous three shot thing.

Now i have said many times this is an evolving system! Whether it was intended to be that way, i dunno? I can tell you for the dr daves 3 shot drill, if you were to continue it across the table or any other ball positioning you can dream up. I would use my experience with cte/pro1 and the cb,ob and pocket location i learned from the system to make all shots. I will have adjusted from shot to shot. The system has taught me that.

Again this is an evolving system it will change with user experience for the last time!!! its not just about using lines like a robot and shooting, the system is a teacher/instructor in it-self and by far the best system out there!!

Untitled-7.jpg


This system is not 100% free of feel, no system is!! get over this already!!!!!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PJ!!!!!!!!!!!!! its agreed on for the last time!!!!!!!!! stop bringing it up post after post!!!!
Click to expand...

What are those adjustments?
Move your bridge forward or back,

Move the head/eye/s to aquire a new visual of the CTE line and parallel shift?

Align the cue to to match the edge of the CB ab bit to the left or right of 1/8, A, B or C?

All or none of the above?

Any one of the above will work.
 
Well, I must be a glutton for punishment, lol, but I have read every post in this thread (nearing 800 now I suspect). From that, I cannot say I have learned anything new about aiming, at least that I can put a finger on... ;)

I do not post in areas that I am not familiar with, so I have no comments regarding the ongoing discussion, but this discussion leaves me with the following question: Can I benefit from the purchase of Stan's system (or any other aiming system for that matter)? Even though this thread is purported to not be strictly about CTE, many, many of the posts discuss it... Yes, I have already located Stan's website, and see the price is reasonable. I am not averse to spending a little money, I have been known to buy Accu-Stats Videos by the handful (that's one of my primary learning methods, watching others better than me, always has been). Currently own maybe 5-10 instructional books, all thoroughly dog-eared, but not visited recently (therefore the reason I don't know the exact count, or where I have stashed them). :smile:

For any of you to help me answer this question, a little about me might be required. I like to play on 9-ft'ers and the place I frequent has a mixture of Brunswick GC 3's and Diamond Pro-Am's. I have been playing for 25+ years and have an open mind to learning. Would say that I am self-taught (although when I was younger I would say I spent as much time watching the best players I could find for as many hours as I could - I couldn't afford to play them, I was young and broke). Then I would practice trying to execute what I saw them do on a table by myself. I am sure I long ago passed the HAMB milestone, but I have no way to quantify that for sure. Have never had a personal lesson - maybe I should try that, too.

Currently I aim by what most in this thread would describe as "feel", I think. There is definitely not any conscious system at work. When I started, the way you learned was by putting in time, word of mouth, etc. I am not even sure Al Gore had invented the internet yet, lol. Originally, I aimed by simply finding the point on the OB that was opposite the intended target (not always a pocket, of course), and then finding the point on the CB that would come into that point on the OB "first". I would then adjust my body, bridge hand, cuestick, stroke, etc. to ultimately try to use the CB to swipe the OB with that point on CB that arrived "first". I am sure this approach is not novel, and probably even has a formal name. If it is a geometrically correct approach, I am not sure... I still revert to this from time-to-time on some shots, as it seems to work for me.

I play with the same cheap Meucci I bought in 1990 and do not use a low deflection shaft. Tried one once and didn't like the idea of having to adjust my entire mental framework of how to adjust for squirt, swerve, deflection or whatever the appropriate term(s). Maybe I didn't give that enough time...who knows. I am not sure what the adjustment time is for the CTE method, but my experience with the LD shaft told me my patience is not great for re-tooling (I readily admit in advance this may be to my detriment with something radically different).

Anyway, I pot okay, I guess, but certainly not as well as I would like. Hmmm, what else? Oh, I was an APA SL-7 in 8-ball before I gave that up 4-5 years ago (like that APA number really means anything, though). In my most recent session of FARGO last night I scored 125 over 10 innings and cleared all 15 balls 6 out of 10 racks. But then again, if you are familiar with that solo practice game I recently learned about here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=85753 , it allows you to switch from random to rotation at a time of your choosing during the rack, so many of those shots end up being fairly close and familiar shots and you have options, i.e. multiple shots to choose from before you switch over to rotation.

I believe by asking this question, this thread can also serve a useful purpose for those who might have the same question as I do, and therefore, in it's own way, I believe it can become a contribution to the discussion at hand, and therefore not solely about "me", which is the last thing I want.

So no flames for this old man please, this is an honest and humble question merely seeking honest input in return. I will listen to all objective feedback, promise. Sorry for the length of the post, I couldn't get out the question I wanted in just a few words and expect to receive the feedback requested.

Many blessings, much respect and peace to all...

~Razor
 
Last edited:
Occam's Razor,
Be true to your Name and be parsimonious with your aiming method.
Each step of CTE is an opportunity to be a bit out of line and with more steps like:
Aiming the edge of the CB at the fractions on the OB.
Shifting the ferrule to the side from the CTE line.
Pivoting back to the center of the CB.

The cumulative tiny errors can cuase you to not hit the target/pocket.

Can you see the contact point on the OB - the point where a line from the center of the pocket exits the OB - then there is hope for you to effect the more parsimonious aiming methods like "double the distance" and "contact point on the OB to contact point on the CB" aiming.

If you are past these two methodsand want more - then buy the DVD.
 
Last edited:
champ2107 said:
well mr PJ feels the need to continue on the topic of feel on a daily basis because he is unable to continue further in the cte discussions because of lack of knowledge. he went from probably one of the most knowledgeable people on cte 15 - 20 years ago around to knowing nothing more than anyone who comes across dr daves site :) just follow his post and you will see, he pretty much knows now what he did 15 years ago which was his choice, and he has a few followers that look up to him, for some strange reason?. do you see now why these threads end up the way they do? I have tried many a time to bait dr dave into a cte discussion for a long long time but he is selective at what post he responds too like PJ, i have made every possible offer to him lol. just go back a page and read through and you will see him and pj duck and dodge posts. I dunno, apparently im a troll and know nothing about nothing and im not here to help anyone according to some, what ever! lol im the champ thats all i kniow lol! ;)



I did read it all, from my perspective it looks like Dave has asked some good questions. The guy takes a pounding out here all the time, still maintains composure. I'm not sure what youre upset about, its not like Dave said pro-1 or cte didnt work.

You said yourself that feel or adjustment was required to make any system work, and I agree. Lamas has done a nice job showing some different ways to adjust. Pretty interesting, so there is some progress here.
Click to expand...
 
Occam's Razor said:
... Can I benefit from the purchase of Stan's system (or any other aiming system for that matter)?
Click to expand...

Maybe! The only way to find out is to give it, or them, a good try. Some people have felt that learning a particular aiming technique has elevated their game significantly. Others have not benefited. If you buy books or DVDs and then decide the information is not for you, you can always recoup a good portion of your initial expenditure by re-selling them on AzB.

Occam's Razor said:
...Originally, I aimed by simply finding the point on the OB that was opposite the intended target (not always a pocket, of course), and then finding the point on the CB that would come into that point on the OB "first". I would then adjust my body, bridge hand, cuestick, stroke, etc. to ultimately try to use the CB to swipe the OB with that point on CB that arrived "first". I am sure this approach is not novel, and probably even has a formal name. If it is a geometrically correct approach, I am not sure... ...
Click to expand...

It's called contact-point-to-contact-point aiming, and, yes, it is geometrically sound. Stated just a bit differently -- find the intended contact point on the OB and aim to hit it with the equal but opposite point on the CB.
 
LAMas said:
Occam's Razor,
Be true to your Name and be parsimonious with your aiming method.
Each step of CTE is an opportunity to be a bit out of line and with more steps like:
Aiming the edge of the CB at the fractions on the OB.
Shifting the ferrule to the side from the CTE line.
Pivoting back to the center of the CB.

The cumulative tiny errors can cuase you to not hit the target/pocket.

Can you see the contact point on the OB - the point where a line from the center of the pocket exits the OB - then there is hope for you to effect the more parsimonious aiming methods like "double the distance" and "contact point on the OB to contact point on the CB" aiming.

If you are past these two methodsand want more - then buy the DVD.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback. Seems like on to "double the distance" and "contact point to contact point" is in order. I think keep it simple (for me) may be best. No need for the steps you mentioned, I think I can see through training and repetition the points needed (but can always be improved). Although I am not familiar with CTE, the steps you mention including shifting the ferrule and learning a pivot may be more than I need at this point

Much respect and thank you again for your reply.
 
AtLarge said:
Maybe! The only way to find out is to give it, or them, a good try. Some people have felt that learning a particular aiming technique has elevated their game significantly. Others have not benefited. If you buy books or DVDs and then decide the information is not for you, you can always recoup a good portion of your initial expenditure by re-selling them on AzB.



It's called contact-point-to-contact-point aiming, and, yes, it is geometrically sound. Stated just a bit differently -- find the intended contact point on the OB and aim to hit it with the equal but opposite point on the CB.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind response to my question. I am inclined to think by what LAMas wrote that it sounds complicated, but then again, it is only $45 for a shot? Not much of a gamble there I guess, if I give it an honest shot and it doesn't "take", I am not out much if I can easily go back to where I was. As I said, all feedback respectfully considered. Thanks again.
 
Occam's Razor said:
Thank you for the feedback. Seems like on to "double the distance" and "contact point to contact point" is in order. I think keep it simple (for me) may be best. No need for the steps you mentioned, I think I can see through training and repetition the points needed (but can always be improved). Although I am not familiar with CTE, the steps you mention including shifting the ferrule and learning a pivot may be more than I need at this point

Much respect and thank you again for your reply.
Click to expand...

Good that you can see the contact point (CP) on the OB.

Sometimes to double check that CP by pointing my cue at the pocket/target from the center of the OB - that is the contact point.

Have you tried "stick aiming" using contact point to contact point aiming that you describe?

I suffer from parallax distortion when looking through the CB contact point to the contact point on the OB.

It is more accurate if I aim the cue through these points while standing to get my feet in the proper position or stance. As I get down on the shot< I shift the cue to the center of the CB and double check that the CP to CP are in line - which is off to the side of the center of the CB.

CPCP Thin 1.jpg
 
I have yet to see anyone bring up what should be an obvious point of contention.

The further the object ball is from your eye, the smaller your eye perceives it.

This could bring great consequences depending on what you use to aim.
 
AimWithYourMind said:
I have yet to see anyone bring up what should be an obvious point of contention.

The further the object ball is from your eye, the smaller your eye perceives it.

This could bring great consequences depending on what you use to aim.
Click to expand...

I have in several of my posts on other threads...like:
Vanishing OB 1.jpg
 
Bambu said:
champ2107 said:
well mr PJ feels the need to continue on the topic of feel on a daily basis because he is unable to continue further in the cte discussions because of lack of knowledge. he went from probably one of the most knowledgeable people on cte 15 - 20 years ago around to knowing nothing more than anyone who comes across dr daves site :) just follow his post and you will see, he pretty much knows now what he did 15 years ago which was his choice, and he has a few followers that look up to him, for some strange reason?. do you see now why these threads end up the way they do? I have tried many a time to bait dr dave into a cte discussion for a long long time but he is selective at what post he responds too like PJ, i have made every possible offer to him lol. just go back a page and read through and you will see him and pj duck and dodge posts. I dunno, apparently im a troll and know nothing about nothing and im not here to help anyone according to some, what ever! lol im the champ thats all i kniow lol! ;)



I did read it all, from my perspective it looks like Dave has asked some good questions. The guy takes a pounding out here all the time, still maintains composure. I'm not sure what youre upset about, its not like Dave said pro-1 or cte didnt work.

You said yourself that feel or adjustment was required to make any system work, and I agree. Lamas has done a nice job showing some different ways to adjust. Pretty interesting, so there is some progress here.
Click to expand...



What good questions has dr dave asked that were not answered already? He is not man enough with all his education to discuss cte with me, he runs away as always!

I have offered many times in the past for him and PJ and whomever to put their heads together against me alone and come up with something and I will counter with a video or post or whatever they want? I will ask them again now! Prove me wrong, prove themselves right or whatever, how hard is this? I am simple person and what do I have to do to get a simple answer or question from these people?

Dr Dave has yet to receive the pounding he deserves! And let me tell you I have received green reps from other well known instructors in the business with dvd's out there! I have the nuts to say what others will not say!

I’m sorry but do you know there are 3 different cte systems discussed in this thread? Do you know lamas shoots back of the ball system mixed together with something he has made up? Do you know Lamas does not shoot cte? Do you know that I proved in the last thread that dr dave, pj, myself, etc has no clue what lamas is doing with these pictures he constantly is putting up?

I may sound like an ass to you but I speak my mind truthfully and I am tired of all this bs!!!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
champ2107 said:
Bambu said:
What good questions has dr dave asked that were not answered already? He is not man enough with all his education to discuss cte with me, he runs away as always!

I have offered many times in the past for him and PJ and whomever to put their heads together against me alone and come up with something and I will counter with a video or post or whatever they want? I will ask them again now! Prove me wrong, prove themselves right or whatever, how hard is this? I am simple person and what do I have to do to get a simple answer or question from these people?

Dr Dave has yet to receive the pounding he deserves! And let me tell you I have received green reps from other well known instructors in the business with dvd's out there! I have the nuts to say what others will not say!

I’m sorry but do you know there are 3 different cte systems discussed in this thread? Do you know lamas shoots back of the ball system mixed together with something he has made up? Do you know Lamas does not shoot cte? Do you know that I proved in the last thread that dr dave, pj, myself, etc has no clue what lamas is doing with these pictures he constantly is putting up?

I may sound like an ass to you but I speak my mind truthfully and I am tired of all this bs!!!
Click to expand...


You know the questions, you even answered them. Videos prove nothing. Even if Lamas pics are not of cte, I find them interesting as he has ways of adjusting. I have seen his diagrams before, so I sort of understand. Shouldnt be a big deal even if its not cte. How do you figure you proved anything? All you did was agree that systems require feel, which is what every science guy has said since the dawn of time.
Click to expand...
 
champ2107:
I have offered many times in the past for him and PJ and whomever to put their heads together against me alone and come up with something and I will counter with a video or post or whatever they want? I will ask them again now! Prove me wrong, prove themselves right or whatever, how hard is this? I am simple person and what do I have to do to get a simple answer or question from these people?
Click to expand...
You have to make sense.

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