what is wrong with knowing the contact point and hitting it with the cb
- Thread starter barking
- Start date
I think Neil hit this directly on the head.
First, there are dozens of aiming systems just like there are many dozens of kicking and banking systems. If you can see the contact point or rail point accurately, then there is no reason for you to use a system.
There are professional level 3 cushion players who report that they don't use any systems at all, just feel through repetition. Most of them however use some sort of learned system on a good portion of their normal shots, and executing those systems over time becomes very intuitive to the point that you would almost never see them physically counting diamonds, moving their stick around, etc. I'm the same way (on a lesser level of course), I can step up to a typical 3 rail route and find the aim point within a second because I've done it so many times, no more laying my stick down, tweaking the math, etc.
CTE/Pro1, or SEE, or 90/90, or whatever, is the same thing. It's a systematic approach to finding the correct aim line. You start out very mechanically and through practice reach a point where everything is intuitive. You are still performing the steps, just very quickly and almost subconsciously. It may not work for everyone, as I think Jerry Briesath says on his DVD if there was a best aiming system then all of the pros would be using it. Instead you have feel aimers, ghost ball, contact point, back of the ball, variations of CTE, variation of fractional aiming, shaft aiming, etc. It's whatever works for you to be able to get on the correct aim line as accuarately and often as possible.
Also, Neil's other point about ducking on difficult shots is key. People keep saying "just aim at the ghost ball, contact point, etc.". Well, most of us can identify the contact point, oppostite of the true pocket opening on any normal shot. What everyone can NOT do is imagine where the cue ball has to be to hit that contact point, since we can't aim directly at it, or keep that point in sight while you are approaching and getting ready to execute the shot. Some portion of the side of the cue ball will actually make contact with the OB contact point, and that visualization, while learned over time, is never 100% accurate since you are aiming at or visualizing something that is not a specific point on the table or object ball.
Obviously we all get pretty good at this visualization, with or without systems. But on more difficult shots, people don't always duck just because they have to let the cue ball go, can't get position, etc. It's because it's tougher to "see" the spot that needs to be hit and estiamte where the cue ball needs to be to hit that spot because of the angle, distance, etc. The margin of error of the actual shot is not smaller - you still have a few degrees depending on distance to the pocket, pocket size, etc. to make the baller. What is smaller is the margin of error of visualizing the shot and the contact point / aim point relationship.
And to address barking's latest post, since I'm on a roll... Yes, CTE/Pro1, 90/90, SEE, etc. all work without the need for knowing the exact contact point. That never factors into the equation. Obviously you have to still hit that point to make the ball, you just get there a different way. For me, that's the beauty of the system, I perform the same steps on all shots, so I don't feel any more anxious over a 50 or 60 degree cut than I do on a simple 5 degree cut. I don't stand behind the object ball and visualize anything, just perform the steps. Obviously the visualization needs to be more precise the further the OB is and the thinner the hit, but the same steps occur.
Obviously I don't make every shot, nor does anyone else with or without the system. You still have to visualize things correctly and execute properly. For me, I just feel like I pocket balls 10% better, if not more on certain types of shots, using the system, so for me it works. If someone pocket balls better by using ghost ball, or fractions, or reflections, etc., then that's the system or approach they should use.
Scott
Of course. You can't know the contact point anyway, you can only estimate it's position.
Telling people to find a contact point is also a way to get them to visually line up in the right direction. For some people it works great and for others they can't seem to use it effectively.
Thanks! I do understand that.:smile:
What I try to practice is to just set balls in a combination from the side view. Then I move directly behind what I have set up and look at it again.
I'm sometimes right, sometimes way off, even allowing for ball throw.
My eyes lie to me with some shots. What this will cause is sometimes changing the aim point to what looks right and you know what happens next?
Last edited:
I have never seen that approach. Very interesting and geometrically correct! Nice diagram too!!
There is nothing wrong with using the contact point. Just because some have no clue about it since they do not use it, but some other form, only means means they just don't get it how to use the contact point. They are not willing to work with it, give up to soon even though it may not make since at first.
Not willing to give it enough time.
Not willing to give it enough time.
Some of us understand it perfectly well. Some of us have been playing for more than 30 years at a decent level with plenty of tournament wins and gambling victories.
Some of us know EVERYTHING you know about pool.....and much more.
As I have told you plenty of times, I can use EVERY method you know at any time and you can't use what I know because you don't it and refuse to learn it.
Learning to aim..using the Ghost Ball contact point is fine but I think it has a much longer learning curve to develop your references because your brain doesn't work well when it's aiming at target that it can't really reference. All of the aiming systems develop thus far are great in helping a new and/or experience players develop their aiming habits(Processes) much faster since they are able to find a reference aiming point that they can rely on more consistently.
The brain seems to work much better when they have a better reference point...even for speed control...it better to use a reference point when the brain has to do less calculation to determine where you want the ball to travel to eg. A spot of the table vs using the end of the rail as reference. A spot on the table for the ball to travel to is very hard for the brain to compute, as there are so many unknown variable it has to calculate....where as I think using the rail..make it easier for the brain to understand that here is where it wants to go. Same with dividing the table into smaller square and playing area position instead of exact position. Only through experience will the player get better fine tune to achieve more exact position.
So, for aiming, a spot on the table/invisible aiming point require a lot more brain power to compute than a physical point on the object ball or using a method where the physical point is auto calculated for you like the Pivot system. I have my own system, CM98 Aiming system, that rely on a dynamic point of contact on the object ball derived from the based shadow intersection to the object ball. These reference points essentially correlate directly to the invisible aiming point of a ghost ball. It's not surprising that one of these reference points works for over 60% of the shot. If you place the object-ball and cueball together for the shot...you should be able to figure out a physical reference points that will work. So in the same ideas with using reference...when your reference is physical...tangible...you brain can compute much faster...so through trial and errors (repetition), you'll start to develop your aiming processes based on your ability to recognize the reference points for each shot more consistently. So eventually, you shoot enough of these shots...you don't even have to aim anymore...because you brain already understand the shot and recognize where there reference is and aim automatically. I'm working on putting together a simple DVD to explain this. When the video is completed, I will be posting here for sales.
Regards,
Duc.
The brain seems to work much better when they have a better reference point...even for speed control...it better to use a reference point when the brain has to do less calculation to determine where you want the ball to travel to eg. A spot of the table vs using the end of the rail as reference. A spot on the table for the ball to travel to is very hard for the brain to compute, as there are so many unknown variable it has to calculate....where as I think using the rail..make it easier for the brain to understand that here is where it wants to go. Same with dividing the table into smaller square and playing area position instead of exact position. Only through experience will the player get better fine tune to achieve more exact position.
So, for aiming, a spot on the table/invisible aiming point require a lot more brain power to compute than a physical point on the object ball or using a method where the physical point is auto calculated for you like the Pivot system. I have my own system, CM98 Aiming system, that rely on a dynamic point of contact on the object ball derived from the based shadow intersection to the object ball. These reference points essentially correlate directly to the invisible aiming point of a ghost ball. It's not surprising that one of these reference points works for over 60% of the shot. If you place the object-ball and cueball together for the shot...you should be able to figure out a physical reference points that will work. So in the same ideas with using reference...when your reference is physical...tangible...you brain can compute much faster...so through trial and errors (repetition), you'll start to develop your aiming processes based on your ability to recognize the reference points for each shot more consistently. So eventually, you shoot enough of these shots...you don't even have to aim anymore...because you brain already understand the shot and recognize where there reference is and aim automatically. I'm working on putting together a simple DVD to explain this. When the video is completed, I will be posting here for sales.
Regards,
Duc.
Last edited:
I use both contact point and ghost ball. Sometimes they don't look right.
It's a day to day thing. Some days are better than others.
Eye surgery for my bad astigmatism may be in my near future.
When something doesn't look right, you will NOT stroke it right. Your mind will force a last second correction on your stroke and you will miss the shot.
Last edited:
"Of course. You can't know the contact point anyway, you can only estimate it's position."
bs. the contact point is an exact point. if you only estimate it, it dont work very well. r u saying for a straight in shot, 1 ft from the pocket the contact point can only be estimated??? lol i dont think you thought before you wrote that!!!lol
whatever mr barton
if you just fire into some inexact spot on the ob you will not have much luck at all. the contact point is the same for any cut shot as it is for a straight in shot.
aiming systems are great but dont characterize the contact point as some incomprehensible, unattainable point on the ob. it is exact.
bs. the contact point is an exact point. if you only estimate it, it dont work very well. r u saying for a straight in shot, 1 ft from the pocket the contact point can only be estimated??? lol i dont think you thought before you wrote that!!!lol
whatever mr barton
if you just fire into some inexact spot on the ob you will not have much luck at all. the contact point is the same for any cut shot as it is for a straight in shot.
aiming systems are great but dont characterize the contact point as some incomprehensible, unattainable point on the ob. it is exact.
I use both contact point and ghost ball. Sometimes they don't look right.
It's a day to day thing. Some days are better than others.
Eye surgery for my bad astigmatism may be in my near future.
When something doesn't look right, you will NOT stroke it right. Your mind will force a last second correction on your stroke and you will miss the shot.
i see. sorry to hear bout that. hope it clears up for you somehow. vision problems suck.
You cannot see a point on a sphere unless it it is marked. You can estimate the location of where a point would be if you could mark it. Dave Segal posted a link to a test that proved no one could accurately place a point in the center of a flat object.
When you estimate a contact point you are getting therrre by drawing an imaginary line from the estimated center of the pocket relative to the angle and bisecting the object ball with that line.
Then you have to actual aim the cue ball in such a way as have it hit that cp correctly.
All these threads are pretty much the same,,,,,,,,the young guys just see a point and fire and often it works well,,,,,what they don't get,,,yet,,,,,,is that there will come a time that that point gets harder and harder to see as they get older. 5 years ago I would have said all these different aiming methods are a waste of time,,,,,now I find myself referring to them more and more. I currently am working with 2 different ones,,,,one I find easier on shorter shots, the other nets better results on longer shots. You still have to aim, and aim precisely, to consistently make shots, but the aiming points are much easier to see as time goes by. I was resistant to try these systems, but in desperation I am, and I am seeing positive results with them.
When we are young, we feel a need to change the world while we're still young and know everything. Problem with that is,,,,,,,we don't know what we don't know!
When we are young, we feel a need to change the world while we're still young and know everything. Problem with that is,,,,,,,we don't know what we don't know!
Damnit I have to give you green..... May get a permacrick in my pointer finger from that but ohh well....
Neil is dead on... Until I actually started shooting the same shots enough times in a row to figure valid percentages I was way off on what my make rates were....
Pick out a long or medium shot, not a hanger or ball close to hole, and mark the cueball and object ball... shoot it 100 times getting up each time and replacing the balls so you have to go thru your whole PSR again and then do some math..... If you cannot make 100 in a row of a shot you pick out for yourself you think you are gonna run 100 in 14.1 or put a 7+ pack up on a 9ft???
Yes, last two posts are right on, again... In many sports I've played people just have a way of forgetting their mistakes and remembering their successes, thus exaggerating (accidentally or on purpose) their rate of success with certain skills. Human nature in part I guess.
I had a thread recently estimating shot percentages and combining them together into a 9 shot run out percentage. The difference between 90% and 95% and 98% is huge when factored together trying to make and get position on 9 consecutive shots, as stated more critical the better you are. In an average match a top pro will shoot .850 - .900, which means they are making 10% - 15% mistakes in a race to 9, 11, etc. Some of these might be kicking errors etc., but most of the time when shooting roughly 100 balls they miss, scratch, fail to get position, etc. on 10 - 15 of those shots. So everytime I hear someone say they "always" run out with 4 or 5 balls left on the table, or run out 50% of the time from the break, I just have to chuckle to myself...
If by using CTE/Pro1, or any other system or approach, my ball pocketing percentage increases overall by 5 - 10%, and on tougher shots it may go up from say 40/50% - 60/70%, or 75% to 90%, it's certainly worth using. It's not going to automatically make me a pro player or raise my game a ton, especially when you already play at a decent level, there are too many other factors to consider. But I certainly miss less makeable shots now and have a ton more confidence over shots than I used to.
Scott
I had a thread recently estimating shot percentages and combining them together into a 9 shot run out percentage. The difference between 90% and 95% and 98% is huge when factored together trying to make and get position on 9 consecutive shots, as stated more critical the better you are. In an average match a top pro will shoot .850 - .900, which means they are making 10% - 15% mistakes in a race to 9, 11, etc. Some of these might be kicking errors etc., but most of the time when shooting roughly 100 balls they miss, scratch, fail to get position, etc. on 10 - 15 of those shots. So everytime I hear someone say they "always" run out with 4 or 5 balls left on the table, or run out 50% of the time from the break, I just have to chuckle to myself...
If by using CTE/Pro1, or any other system or approach, my ball pocketing percentage increases overall by 5 - 10%, and on tougher shots it may go up from say 40/50% - 60/70%, or 75% to 90%, it's certainly worth using. It's not going to automatically make me a pro player or raise my game a ton, especially when you already play at a decent level, there are too many other factors to consider. But I certainly miss less makeable shots now and have a ton more confidence over shots than I used to.
Scott
im hardly a young guy. ive never said there is any thing wrong with the various aiming systems. but so many of you imply that not using one of the systems you tout is inadequate. read the topic of the thread again. im gonna vacate this thread now. go ahead and turn it into anything you want. jus dont complain like pussys when others do the same to your threads.
I'm glad you have not reached a point in your life where age or physical ability has necessitated that you look at alternative ways to aim. But the fact is, some have. And age isn't the main thing, there is depth perception, parralax vision, etc,,,,,a number of things can make ghost ball aiming difficult and/or inaccurate to different people. No one has said ghost ball doesn't work,,,,,,but several have said they find other ways easier. Read your initials opening 4 posts in this thread,,,,,,,,,you are the one that says ghost ball is all thats needed and anything else overcomplicates aiming. Others said fine, but I like to use more,,,,,,,and so you call them vulgar names,,,,,,,,your thread definitely turned south, but you did it.