Well legitimacy is the sticking point now isn't it? From a physioligcal and pyshchological perpsective if some one reports that they are looking at the target in a certain way and basing their body position on what they perceive then you really don't have much choice but to accept their word for it since you can't actually prove or disprove what they are reporting.
We don't have to accept it, but you're right, it would be hard to prove or disprove. There's more to aiming than body position.
The ghost ball method works fine on paper. And it works well enough in the hands of someone with good spatial cognizance. But in the end it relies heavily on estimation and feel. Very heavily. Using the ghost ball method is subject to wide variance in perception and is influenced by otpical illusions related to perception.
Can't say I disagree, but in the end, its all we got. (By "ghostball," I mean some part of the ghostball, e.g., edge, center, contact point or whatever).
The CTE method relies on making a more concrete visual connection between the cueball and the object ball. This causes the shooter to adopt a very narrow approach to the cueball and also a consistent one.
That's probably of considerable benefit. Unfortunately, there's not enough information in the salient features of the cueball or object ball in which to tell you where to aim your stick...except for straight-in shots or a small number of cut angles (accepting that a quarter ball division is a sufficiently clear landmark, especially with practice).
This is part of the reason that a player who goes to CTE is often confronted with shots where their formerly ghost-ball using brain is telling them that the line given by the CTE method is wrong. And most often if the player ignores that signal and shoots along the line given by CTE it turns out to be correct. Which indicates that the shooter's perception of what the correct shot line is using ghost ball is flawed. Most likely because of some perceptual problem that the shooter is unaware of.
Instances have been reported before, but are you sure that's the general rule? There certainly are shots where CTE or any of the pivot systems, without adjustments, will produce the correct aim line.
It is easier however to use the balls one can see. Visually most people can divide a sphere into two equal halves. Most people can see the edge of the sphere clearly enough from their vantage point. So it's not that difficult a task to find a space behind the cue ball that is in line with the center of the cue ball and the edge of the object ball. This simple exercise can be repeated with accuracy by most people. So finding this line and using it to orient the body is a task that is much easier than finding the center of an invisible object to line up to.
Agreed. But where do you point the cue? I thought Stan and Co. did a great job on the DVD. Only I was somewhat shocked that, as I recall, nowhere did it say where the cue should be aimed prior to pivoting. Body position, visuals, tip offset, don't, by themselves, put much of a constraint on that (some, but there's still a lot of latitude, no?). If it's yours and Stan's contention that they do, I'd like to hear more about that.
Using my earlier example of a laser to double scheck this I am certain that the results of taking normal people off the street would bear out that those people would be much more accurate placing their torso in a position that the CTE line splits them down the middle than they would placing their torso on the GB center line. I might actually attempt to do this experiment with a laser level mounted on a tripod. And of course the more experience that a player has the better they will be able to align themselves to the GB center line but I still firmly believe that even as the skill level increases the use of the CTE line will result in a higher degree of accuracy in initial alignment.
Now, wht are the equations and diagrams that would legitimize this approach for you? I don't know.
Well, if you could specify where the cue is pointing before the pivot takes place, I (and others), could do the math that de-legitimizes it.
Sorry about that, but I see no other outcome. However, if it were to turn out that those of us on the contra-side have been suffering from severe concussions and somehow, someway, it could be shown to be mathematically sacrosanct, that deed would be done as well...and even enthusiastically, despite the ego ramifications.
Lets do another thought experiment.
If I ask a person to stand in the corner and put their nose in it they can do that easily. If I ask them to stand five feet away but at a perfect 45 degrees to the corner with their nose in line they will not be able to do this consistently. If I then place a round wastebasket at 45 degrees to the corner and ask them to stand behind the wastebasket and face the corner with the nose splitting the basket and in line with the corner then they will, I believe, be able to to do this much more consistently. The premise is that the more objects a person has to use as guidance the better that person can orient themselves.
There is a physical reason CTE works that is beyond simply saying it's subconscious adjustment and feel. There has to be because it's so cosistent. Which is obvious because if it were not then there wouldn't be this much debate over it. Notice that there is not debate over the light reflection methods or the shadow methods or the cue stick methods? I personally believe that this is because those methods are not nearly as consistent as CTE is. CTE users know the value of what they are doing and how it works in their game. They don't know the math but they know it works just like any player who is able to use ghost ball knows that it works without needing the math.
So no, if you need the math to consider any method other than Ghost Ball legimate then at the moment there isn't any that I know of and frankly I wouldn't know if it were right even if I saw the math. From a practical task-result perspective though the use of CTE gets the job done consistently so to me that is legitimate.
One of the arguments against it, which Patrick has raised in this thread again, is that it's way too consistent. In other words, if you follow its prescriptions exactly, you'd better hope you face only a limited number of cut angles during your pool playing career. That's a bit of a flippant response, but it's getting late. I certainly wouldn't argue with the notion that the more cues you have at your disposal, the better.
Jim
