CTE: The Nuts and Bolts Counterpoints

[duckie]

This is really a article on how someone gave up on using ghost ball becuase of lack of practice and is not a true comparison of the two. http://www.billiardsthegame.com/cte-the-nuts-and-bolts-653

First, since this is first person account on how someone uses CTE v Ghost Ball, you can't not write this "With ghost-ball aiming, you imagine....". The correct statement would be "With ghost-ball aiming, I imagine....". Using "you" implies that you know how someone might use ghost ball. I am a ghost ball users and I have never once imagined a ball as you stated. My use of ghost ball does not rely on "seeing a ghost ball at the OB."

And there is this "far the most complete, accurate, and easiest to learn and execute. " Nothing could be farther from the truth. If it was so , then no one would miss, there would not have been updates, and there would not have been so many state the opposite of it being easy to learn.

Not to leave this out "To address briefly, the influence of throw, spin, cloth speed, cling, chalk, etc. all play a part in the nuances of pocket billiards, and an understood component of any aiming system. As these are not the topic of discussion, just understand we are talking about finding center pocket, which gives you maximum wiggle room for all the nuances stated.)".

In other words, CTE can not help you in making the adjust for these when needed. Where as the, way I use ghost ball does. In addition, the reason CTE works is because of slop, ie margin of error.

Now, as to try implying that CTE is not subjective, well, it is, as it all aiming visualization systems, which is all CTE is, no more.

Consider a bench set up for target shooting that use a remote trigger. I can set up it to hit the bulls eye, hand the remote over to a new person to shooting and they will hit the bull. This is taking the person out of the equation.

Take that same person and go skeet shooting where it is all up to them on where to point the gun and when to pull the trigger. Bet there hit to miss ratio is no where near the bench setup.

Since there it always a person shooting a pool shot, there is no way not to use a subjective way to to put the CB where you want. Also, stating that a shot is 30 degrees is totally subjective unless you measure it every time. The shot maybe 28 degrees or 31 degrees. Is that really a 1/2 ball hit or a 30/64 ball hit? Totally subject unless CTE provides you with some form of digital readout for the cut angle.

With the way I use ghost ball, the cut angle does not matter at all in putting the CB where I want, since all the shots to me are straight.

Lets talk time.....It was stated playing for 15 years couple times a week.....what does this really mean? Well, to me nothing. That could be 2 hours a week or 104 hrs a year or a total of 1560 hours over 15 years. I got over 2000 hours of playing over the last 2.5 years. Of course you are gonna be useless at something when you do not put in the time, ie lack of practice as was stated.. This also why I am very proficient in using ghost ball.

As for the cute little video. It would be more impressive to put one OB on the table with just the CB and go 2 or more rails to hit the OB and see how many times you can do that. And yeah, I keep bringing this up because me missing this type of shot once cost me match, but I have never lost a match since then from missing a safety. Its shots you have never seen before that matter the most.

No real proof of improvement was offered, just opinion, which is very subjective. CTE is not and will never be as accurate as ghost ball aiming no matter what kinda of spin is used to make CTE seem like the cats meow.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Duckman, come to Colorado. I'll teach you pro one. No charge.

 

[mohrt]

This is really a article on how someone gave up on using ghost ball becuase of lack of practice and is not a true comparison of the two. http://www.billiardsthegame.com/cte-the-nuts-and-bolts-653

No I gave up on ghostball because it is not nearly as objective to use. With any given practice timeframe, you will go farther with CTE. That is my claim and my experience. You don't have to agree, but you also cannot dispute or argue as you have not put the time in to truly understand CTE.

First, since this is first person account on how someone uses CTE v Ghost Ball, you can't not write this "With ghost-ball aiming, you imagine....". The correct statement would be "With ghost-ball aiming, I imagine....". Using "you" implies that you know how someone might use ghost ball. I am a ghost ball users and I have never once imagined a ball as you stated. My use of ghost ball does not rely on "seeing a ghost ball at the OB."

This is how ghostball aiming is defined. If you don't use it this way, then it is not ghostball aiming. I also stated that after time, the shots become automated and selection comes from memory. No longer any use of ghostball at that point.

And there is this "far the most complete, accurate, and easiest to learn and execute. " Nothing could be farther from the truth. If it was so , then no one would miss, there would not have been updates, and there would not have been so many state the opposite of it being easy to learn.

This was stated within the context of other CTE aiming systems out there (Pro One, 90/90, 1/2 ball pivot, ...) not a comparison of CTE to any aiming system.

Not to leave this out "To address briefly, the influence of throw, spin, cloth speed, cling, chalk, etc. all play a part in the nuances of pocket billiards, and an understood component of any aiming system. As these are not the topic of discussion, just understand we are talking about finding center pocket, which gives you maximum wiggle room for all the nuances stated.)".

In other words, CTE can not help you in making the adjust for these when needed. Where as the, way I use ghost ball does. In addition, the reason CTE works is because of slop, ie margin of error.

It has nothing to do with how CTE (or any aiming system) can help you with the nuances. PRO ONE CTE takes you to a slight overcut to compensate throw. But the point is that the article is not about addressing the nuances, it is just about the aiming system itself. All aiming systems have the nuances that the shooter must address, and I only mention it to avoid moot arguments, but somehow it only created one with you?

Now, as to try implying that CTE is not subjective, well, it is, as it all aiming visualization systems, which is all CTE is, no more.

From behind the cue ball, Ghostballs are subjective. Contact points are subjective. Half ball hit lines are objective. Edges and centers of balls are objective. If you don't agree, then that is by choice and not by fact.

Consider a bench set up for target shooting that use a remote trigger. I can set up it to hit the bulls eye, hand the remote over to a new person to shooting and they will hit the bull. This is taking the person out of the equation.

Take that same person and go skeet shooting where it is all up to them on where to point the gun and when to pull the trigger. Bet there hit to miss ratio is no where near the bench setup.

Since there it always a person shooting a pool shot, there is no way not to use a subjective way to to put the CB where you want. Also, stating that a shot is 30 degrees is totally subjective unless you measure it every time. The shot maybe 28 degrees or 31 degrees. Is that really a 1/2 ball hit or a 30/64 ball hit? Totally subject unless CTE provides you with some form of digital readout for the cut angle.

Which only solidifies the point, there is only ONE shot in ghostball that is objective, and it is a very fine line. But for the perfect shot all you have to do is aim at the edge of the ball, it is very objective and repeatable.

You can use the edges and centers (objective targets) to send the cueball into the object ball to connect with a pocket. That is the point of CTE.

With the way I use ghost ball, the cut angle does not matter at all in putting the CB where I want, since all the shots to me are straight.

So explain your system, and how is this ghostball?

Lets talk time.....It was stated playing for 15 years couple times a week.....what does this really mean? Well, to me nothing. That could be 2 hours a week or 104 hrs a year or a total of 1560 hours over 15 years. I got over 2000 hours of playing over the last 2.5 years. Of course you are gonna be useless at something when you do not put in the time, ie lack of practice as was stated.. This also why I am very proficient in using ghost ball.

It means I have made far more progress in 2 years than I have made in 15. No more time has been added to practice. Is that by chance? Coincidence?

As for the cute little video. It would be more impressive to put one OB on the table with just the CB and go 2 or more rails to hit the OB and see how many times you can do that. And yeah, I keep bringing this up because me missing this type of shot once cost me match, but I have never lost a match since then from missing a safety. Its shots you have never seen before that matter the most.

This is about an aiming system for pocketing balls. Stan may have things to say about CTE PRO ONE and kicking. That is not what this video is about.

No real proof of improvement was offered, just opinion, which is very subjective. CTE is not and will never be as accurate as ghost ball aiming no matter what kinda of spin is used to make CTE seem like the cats meow.

And you offer no proof it isn't. And who is going to take your opinion at face value, you don't even know how to use the system?

This article is about my experience with CTE PRO ONE. There is nothing being forced upon you.

 

[mohrt]

I will retract to say there are two objective shots in ghostball, not one. Half ball hit and straight in.

 

[JB Cases]

First let me say to Greg that I congratulate him on starting a new thread and laying his counterpoints outs thoughtfully and with civility.

My thoughts:

1. Ghost Ball Aiming is the form of aiming that every beginning player learns. It is taught in every book, used in every type of virtual pool software, used in diagramming because and is firmly a part of pool and billiards. It is this way because it is the the easiest way to explain how to line up a cue stick with a cue ball to send it into another ball. Without taking throw and deflection into account it is absolutely perfect to use as a way to explain and show with very close approximation where the cue should be pointing for almost any shot.

So it's fair to say that every person who plays pool and reads this forum is familiar with Ghost Ball.

It is not fair to say that those who are looking for another way to aim have given up on it or not spent enough time with it. That might be correct for a few people but it certainly isn't correct for most of them I would wager. And it is especially not correct for anyone who takes the study of CTE seriously. Because those who study CTE seriously are forced to go back and look again at ghost ball in a much deeper way. We are driven to understand how any other method could get us to the ghost ball line. No student of CTE denies that the true GB corridor is the one line that allows for the ball to be made without any helping throw.

So with that in mind I suggest to you as I have in the past, that any person can always go back to Ghost Ball. Not only that they can use GB at any time on any shot and in conjunction with any system. I find that there are times when I want to use the GB estimation method to line up a shot in tandem with or even instead of CTE. Since I know perfectly well how to use GB this is easy to do.

2. CTE is a valid method. I don't understand why you need to invalidate CTE as a method of aiming. To use your example of bench shooting vs. skeet shooting. If the task is to set the rifle on a bench and fiddle with it until it's perfectly set then the method of aiming is the fiddling and I am certain, without looking it up, that many people have many opinions on what they best way to do that it. But once set as you say, then any person can come in and hit the target. This is because the rifle has been set up using objective and real things, a bench, a stand, a sight, and a target. There is no need to lead and estimate as in skeet shooting when trying to hit a moving target. That task has it's own methods. In fact every task on the planet has many ways to accomplish the goal. If the result is obtained consistently then the method itself is valid. This is ultimately not a "war" between Ghost Ball and CTE. CTE can never supplant Ghost Ball as a method of aiming. It's simply too easy to teach GB to beginners. Now I won't argue that perhaps there is a place for say Advanced Ghost Ball Training. Maybe a very deep regimen of exactly how to use GB is something that can be helpful to everyone. But that does not mean that CTE is not a valid method of aiming as well.

I think you would be much happier if you simply allowed the CTE learners to learn it and instead of trying to discredit it you simply deepened your own relationship with Ghost Ball. Then you can present your findings and offer great value to the readers. I know for a fact that many people's eyes glaze over at the thought of CTE and they won't try it no matter how much it's explained. In fact the very existence of so much explanation is putting them off. So, for those people perhaps simply a deeper conversation of Ghost Ball is what they need.

Be that guy who advocates GB and becomes the GB guru. I bet if you do that instead of framing it against GB all the time you will find much more resonance. Now you might want to say that CTE teachers and advocates should do the same and never mention GB. Well, they have to because GB is the platform that all aiming methods have to reconcile with. If a method doesn't bring the shooter to the GB shot line then it's no good.

3. Accuracy: How would you know whether using CTE produces more accuracy or not? I submit to you than in order to make a comparative statement of fact such as you did that you would need to know both methods to actually compare them. You were a racer if I understand your history. So if I were your mechanic and there was a new part that was claimed to boost power I think it would be remiss if I simply said that nothing new could ever be as good as the standard method. I would be especially remiss if I saw that other mechanics were using it and giving great reviews on the performance.

I just feel that as a student of the game and as a person who feels that he can make definitive statements of fact on the merits of another method you should at least learn that method to be qualified to make those statements. I am not sure but I would say that I probably know as much or possibly more about Ghost Ball than you do. And I certainly know more about the actual use of CTE. So from one pool player to another I can tell you that in my personal experience CTE produces much more accurate results than GB.

The last point is for Mohrt.

Even a straight in shot and a half-ball hit are NOT objective because there is no way for the shooter to know that a shot is exactly zero degrees or exactly 30 degrees without using some other kind of object. The spot shot is an example of using the table, the spot, as an exact ball placement. And when two balls are frozen to the rail then it's a perfectly straight in shot. All else is still perception and estimation. But your point is completely valid in that the more objectivity that the shooter can use the better he can align to the shot. This is why there were people who could bet that they would not miss more than 5 spot shots in a thousand and win that bet over and over.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Man you guys both typed really long responses to this troll.

 

[mohrt]

JB,

All I am saying is that aiming at the edge or center of the OB is about as objective as it gets. Determining whether the OB is on the 30 or not is not the point. That is why in my article I show how to align the spot shot as a half ball hit so you can make it just by aiming at the edge if the OB.

 

[mohrt]

I agree the half ball hit and center hit rarely align perfectly to a pocket. They may not be terribly useful specifically in ghost ball aiming. But that was not the point.

 

[JB Cases]

Man you guys both typed really long responses to this troll.

You know I don't think of Duckie as a troll. I think he is locked onto one way to aim and has for some reason taken personal offense to the suggestion that there are other ways to aim which work and which people report to be better.

I am glad to see him lay out his objections in a new thread where they can be discussed.

 

[JB Cases]

This is really a article on how someone gave up on using ghost ball becuase of lack of practice and is not a true comparison of the two. http://www.billiardsthegame.com/cte-the-nuts-and-bolts-653

That is of course your assumption. For all you know Mohrt could have made just as much or more attempt to use GB.

First, since this is first person account on how someone uses CTE v Ghost Ball, you can't not write this "With ghost-ball aiming, you imagine....". The correct statement would be "With ghost-ball aiming, I imagine....". Using "you" implies that you know how someone might use ghost ball. I am a ghost ball users and I have never once imagined a ball as you stated. My use of ghost ball does not rely on "seeing a ghost ball at the OB."

If true then you are not using Ghost Ball.

And there is this "far the most complete, accurate, and easiest to learn and execute. " Nothing could be farther from the truth. If it was so , then no one would miss, there would not have been updates, and there would not have been so many state the opposite of it being easy to learn.

I agree with you in part. Ghost Ball is the easiest way to learn to aim. Far easier than CTE. However the reward of learning CTE is worth it, in my opinion.

Not to leave this out "To address briefly, the influence of throw, spin, cloth speed, cling, chalk, etc. all play a part in the nuances of pocket billiards, and an understood component of any aiming system. As these are not the topic of discussion, just understand we are talking about finding center pocket, which gives you maximum wiggle room for all the nuances stated.)".

In other words, CTE can not help you in making the adjust for these when needed. Where as the, way I use ghost ball does. In addition, the reason CTE works is because of slop, ie margin of error.

No, that is not the reason CTE works. And once you have acquired the shot line you can adjust from that position as needed. Regarding the "wiggle room" if you are on the perfect shot line with GB or CTE then of course the shooter still has a margin of allowable error that is dependent on the pocket size.

Now, as to try implying that CTE is not subjective, well, it is, as it all aiming visualization systems, which is all CTE is, no more.

Incorrect. CTE uses a definite object to align to, the edge of the object ball. Not an indefinite point nor an imaginary ball.

Consider a bench set up for target shooting that use a remote trigger. I can set up it to hit the bulls eye, hand the remote over to a new person to shooting and they will hit the bull. This is taking the person out of the equation.

Ok, but this has nothing to do with either GB or CTE.

Take that same person and go skeet shooting where it is all up to them on where to point the gun and when to pull the trigger. Bet there hit to miss ratio is no where near the bench setup.

That's a given.

Since there it always a person shooting a pool shot, there is no way not to use a subjective way to to put the CB where you want. Also, stating that a shot is 30 degrees is totally subjective unless you measure it every time. The shot maybe 28 degrees or 31 degrees. Is that really a 1/2 ball hit or a 30/64 ball hit? Totally subject unless CTE provides you with some form of digital readout for the cut angle.

CTE does not rely on exact angles. Neither does GB. Each shot is an individual exercise in alignment. Perceptually however CTE provides a much more objective way to align than GB does if one uses GB as taught, which is to imagine a phantom ball in line with the pocket.

With the way I use ghost ball, the cut angle does not matter at all in putting the CB where I want, since all the shots to me are straight.

And this is in effect no different than CTE. For the CTE user every shot looks the same with the same steps from acquiring the visual to getting into the shooting position.

Lets talk time.....It was stated playing for 15 years couple times a week.....what does this really mean? Well, to me nothing. That could be 2 hours a week or 104 hrs a year or a total of 1560 hours over 15 years. I got over 2000 hours of playing over the last 2.5 years. Of course you are gonna be useless at something when you do not put in the time, ie lack of practice as was stated.. This also why I am very proficient in using ghost ball.

You say time means nothing but then go on to define what time means. Your claimed proficiency at using GB is noted. What you are not proficient at is CTE. So therefore you really have very little to no basis to make comparisons.

I would guess that any decent shooter on this site could explain Ghost Ball as well or better than you can. I would bet that they could also use GB to find the shooting line as well as you can. The point being that all of us can do what you do but you cannot do what we do.

As for the cute little video. It would be more impressive to put one OB on the table with just the CB and go 2 or more rails to hit the OB and see how many times you can do that. And yeah, I keep bringing this up because me missing this type of shot once cost me match, but I have never lost a match since then from missing a safety. Its shots you have never seen before that matter the most.

Again, when one knows various methods then one can choose to use any of them. A person who knows GB can use that where it's the best way to figure a shot, a person who knows CTE can use that and a person who knows various ways to bank and kick can use those.

I am certain however that you cannot duplicate Mohrt's video using GB. If so then do it. Don't talk about it. Those are four bank shots that are not easy by feel. Mohrt showed you that he uses a clear and objective system to line them up. Show us how you would do it and give the readers here another choice and let them decide which to use.

No real proof of improvement was offered, just opinion, which is very subjective. CTE is not and will never be as accurate as ghost ball aiming no matter what kinda of spin is used to make CTE seem like the cats meow.

What sort of proof do you need? I mean for the past couple years you have also not provided any real proof of your claims of improvement either. Where are your videos showing you beating the ghost, running lots of balls in straight pool, making lots of bank shots in a row, making tough shots, etc.... Where are your trophies and records and your APA Break and Run patches?

We make videos to prove our assertions as best we can and you don't. Not once have you made videos showing you actually making the shots you challenge with? We talk about making shots directly to pockets and you counter with multi-rail kicks and caroms. But you never show yourself actually making those multi-rail kicks and caroms even though they are completely not relevant to the discussion anyway. If you want to make this about the credibility of the person speaking then Greg, you have none.

I don't know anyone who actually even knows you and has seen you play. Is there another person on this forum who can vouch for you?

You see Mohrt's table? You see all the reinforcers at different locations? How can you look at that and say that he is not dedicated enough?

I will make you a challenge. You have 24 hours to post a video of you making the exact same four consecutive bank shots that Mohrt did in the same order and uncut. If you do it I will pay you $200. We aren't betting. I will simply pay to see you do it.

Since you think that the video was "cute" then you should be able to do those "easy" shots with no problem. So show us and earn $200 for your trouble. Show us that GB (or whatever method you would use) is the equivalent or better than what Mohrt used to make those bank shots. Then we have something to compare.

 

[BeiberLvr]

You know I don't think of Duckie as a troll. I think he is locked onto one way to aim and has for some reason taken personal offense to the suggestion that there are other ways to aim which work and which people report to be better.

I am glad to see him lay out his objections in a new thread where they can be discussed.

Except he won't be part of the discussion. He's made his one post in this thread, and even your $200 free roll won't be enough to make him come out.

 

[JB Cases]

Except he won't be part of the discussion. He's made his one post in this thread, and even your $200 free roll won't be enough to make him come out.

Well the nature of objections is to overcome them if possible. Anyone can counter any point and if their assertions stand unchallenged then it can be assumed that they are right.

So if Duckie declines to make a proper defense of his claims then we readers can file those assertions away as busted and continue on with the discussion as we like.

I don't mind being challenged. If I can't provide some kind of evidence to support my side then perhaps I should not be supporting that side. It's why I make videos, to test out the challenges and see for myself if what I am saying makes any sense. I would expect the opposition to be willing to do the same thing.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Well I think it is safe to say that your money is safer now from being given away then it would be at Fort Knox.

The funny thing about this is the arrow, is not a ghost ball aiming system. Visualizing a point 1 1/8 inches from the OB in line with a target is technically not GB.

The only one who really doesn't understand that is Duckie.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Well I think it is safe to say that your money is safer now from being given away then it would be at Fort Knox.

The funny thing about this is the arrow, is not a ghost ball aiming system. Visualizing a point 1 1/8 inches from the OB in line with a target is technically not GB.

The only one who really doesn't understand that is Duckie.

That would be the line of aim or angle of approach I guess.
Time proven by snooker players I believe.
Pick a line , stick to that line and shoot through that line.
Which imho is a lot simpler than picking some line, shifting from that line to get a line then apply english by moving to another line.

 

[JB Cases]

That would be the line of aim or angle of approach I guess.
Time proven by snooker players I believe.
Pick a line , stick to that line and shoot through that line.
Which imho is a lot simpler than picking some line, shifting from that line to get a line then apply english by moving to another line.

I agree. On paper and in practice it's much simpler to guess a line and stick to it. In reality it's much better to use a ball-to-ball method, at least for some people.

I have always said don't fix what isn't broken. If GB or some form of it works for you then by all means don't mess with anything else. If however you feel that maybe it's not and you have done everything else then you don't harm yourself by trying other methods.

 

[8pack]

This is really a article on how someone gave up on using ghost ball becuase of lack of practice and is not a true comparison of the two. http://www.billiardsthegame.com/cte-the-nuts-and-bolts-653

First, since this is first person account on how someone uses CTE v Ghost Ball, you can't not write this "With ghost-ball aiming, you imagine....". The correct statement would be "With ghost-ball aiming, I imagine....". Using "you" implies that you know how someone might use ghost ball. I am a ghost ball users and I have never once imagined a ball as you stated. My use of ghost ball does not rely on "seeing a ghost ball at the OB."

And there is this "far the most complete, accurate, and easiest to learn and execute. " Nothing could be farther from the truth. If it was so , then no one would miss, there would not have been updates, and there would not have been so many state the opposite of it being easy to learn.

Not to leave this out "To address briefly, the influence of throw, spin, cloth speed, cling, chalk, etc. all play a part in the nuances of pocket billiards, and an understood component of any aiming system. As these are not the topic of discussion, just understand we are talking about finding center pocket, which gives you maximum wiggle room for all the nuances stated.)".

In other words, CTE can not help you in making the adjust for these when needed. Where as the, way I use ghost ball does. In addition, the reason CTE works is because of slop, ie margin of error.

Now, as to try implying that CTE is not subjective, well, it is, as it all aiming visualization systems, which is all CTE is, no more.

Consider a bench set up for target shooting that use a remote trigger. I can set up it to hit the bulls eye, hand the remote over to a new person to shooting and they will hit the bull. This is taking the person out of the equation.

Take that same person and go skeet shooting where it is all up to them on where to point the gun and when to pull the trigger. Bet there hit to miss ratio is no where near the bench setup.

Since there it always a person shooting a pool shot, there is no way not to use a subjective way to to put the CB where you want. Also, stating that a shot is 30 degrees is totally subjective unless you measure it every time. The shot maybe 28 degrees or 31 degrees. Is that really a 1/2 ball hit or a 30/64 ball hit? Totally subject unless CTE provides you with some form of digital readout for the cut angle.

With the way I use ghost ball, the cut angle does not matter at all in putting the CB where I want, since all the shots to me are straight.

Lets talk time.....It was stated playing for 15 years couple times a week.....what does this really mean? Well, to me nothing. That could be 2 hours a week or 104 hrs a year or a total of 1560 hours over 15 years. I got over 2000 hours of playing over the last 2.5 years. Of course you are gonna be useless at something when you do not put in the time, ie lack of practice as was stated.. This also why I am very proficient in using ghost ball.

As for the cute little video. It would be more impressive to put one OB on the table with just the CB and go 2 or more rails to hit the OB and see how many times you can do that. And yeah, I keep bringing this up because me missing this type of shot once cost me match, but I have never lost a match since then from missing a safety. Its shots you have never seen before that matter the most.

No real proof of improvement was offered, just opinion, which is very subjective. CTE is not and will never be as accurate as ghost ball aiming no matter what kinda of spin is used to make CTE seem like the cats meow.

Ghostball is the nutz especially on straight in shots.:smile:

 

[sfleinen]

Ghostball is the nutz especially on straight in shots.:smile:

"Ghostballs are duckie's nutz specifically from bent-knee shots?"

What did you just say?


-Sean

 

[MahnaMahna]

Red given for creating a thread responding to a different thread that you now won't respond to.

Fool.

 

[The Renfro]

Well I think it is safe to say that your money is safer now from being given away then it would be at Fort Knox.

The funny thing about this is the arrow, is not a ghost ball aiming system. Visualizing a point 1 1/8 inches from the OB in line with a target is technically not GB.

The only one who really doesn't understand that is Duckie.

I've always thought the arrow was simply a tool to use for learning the "spot on the table" method and not ghostball... I use "spot on the table" when I cannot see the angle properly but I measure with my ferrule... I have also seen Archer use it many times...

Until we can make a holographic image pop up from the table I don't think there will be a tool to take out the imagining part in ghostball... I have seen people helped imagine/visualize by placing and object ball at contact while they aim and then removing the target ball but that still requires visualization and imagination......

I agree that Duck doesn't understand the differences and isn't using ghost ball at all

Chris

 

[sfleinen]

Well I think it is safe to say that your money is safer now from being given away then it would be at Fort Knox.

The funny thing about this is the arrow, is not a ghost ball aiming system. Visualizing a point 1 1/8 inches from the OB in line with a target is technically not GB.

The only one who really doesn't understand that is Duckie.

That would be the line of aim or angle of approach I guess.
Time proven by snooker players I believe.
Pick a line , stick to that line and shoot through that line.
Which imho is a lot simpler than picking some line, shifting from that line to get a line then apply english by moving to another line.

I've always thought the arrow was simply a tool to use for learning the "spot on the table" method and not ghostball... I use "spot on the table" when I cannot see the angle properly but I measure with my ferrule... I have also seen Archer use it many times...

Until we can make a holographic image pop up from the table I don't think there will be a tool to take out the imagining part in ghostball... I have seen people helped imagine/visualize by placing and object ball at contact while they aim and then removing the target ball but that still requires visualization and imagination......

I agree that Duck doesn't understand the differences and isn't using ghost ball at all

Chris

I agree, guys. Shooting the cue ball at a spot on the table (as indicated by the "arrow") vs. shooting the cue ball to "take the place of a visualized ghostball" are two completely different things. The latter -- "shooting the cue ball to take the place of a visualized ghostball" -- does not involve the table, other than to make sure the visualized ghostball is contacting it.

Fractional aiming -- where you aim the cue ball to "eclipse" the object ball by a certain amount -- e.g. 2/3-ball hit -- is closer to ghostball than trying to shoot at a spot on the table. (It's actually a derivative of ghostball, just as snooker's "Back of Ball" method is.)

And, I'm pretty sure John (JB Cases) PROVED in a video, by using a Sharpie pen to place dots around the circumference of an object ball at points where he "estimates" where a ghostball would be touching the cloth in contact with that object ball -- of how INACCURATE that system is. And unless one has truly great 3D-perceptive skills, I think John's results would echo the same results of anyone trying that method.

Rather, "true" ghostball involves shooting the cue ball *AT* (to take the place of, in 3D space next to the object ball in line with the pocket) the "outline" of the ghostball as it sits next to the object ball. In other words, you're shooting the cue ball "into the space of" of the perceived ghostball. You are NOT shooting at the spot on the cloth where the ghostball "rests"!! This type of aiming does NOT involve the cloth at all, except to make sure the imagined ghostball is resting upon it.

Too bad duckie himself doesn't realize that.
-Sean