Contact Point/GB vs. Aim Point/CTE

BeiberLvr

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Everyone knows I'm a Pro One user, but I wanted to bring something up that I haven't seen anyone ask before. I'm actually really surprised that the Duckster hasn't already asked this, but he can be forgiven since he doesn't actually know CTE.

I've read from the CTE users that it's almost impossible to see where the GB is, or where the contact point is on the OB. That CTE is very objective.

With that I agree, except for one exception. The aim points, A, B, and C.

What's the difference between being able to see the CTE aim point vs. a contact point on the OB. If you can see one, then you can see the other, right?
 
BeiberLvr said:
Everyone knows I'm a Pro One user, but I wanted to bring something up that I haven't seen anyone ask before. I'm actually really surprised that the Duckster hasn't already asked this, but he can be forgiven since he doesn't actually know CTE.

I've read from the CTE users that it's almost impossible to see where the GB is, or where the contact point is on the OB. That CTE is very objective.

With that I agree, except for one exception. The aim points, A, B, and C.

What's the difference between being able to see the CTE aim point vs. a contact point on the OB. If you can see one, then you can see the other, right?
Click to expand...

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the edge at the equator has other contrasting images or points for comparison.

The Ghost ball contact 'point' is surrounded by exactly the same type of 'points' with no contrast, so one is just like the other. Which one is correct?

I agree with you about the A, B, & C. If that is the end basis of Pro1, I would think one might as well just go there directly. The CTE would just be a body position thing to be more consistent in getting in a good position to stoke freely & correctly. It would not be as much of an aiming system & would just be a systematic way to get into a good shooting position. If I can always get into a good shooting position by my own feel then I can go right to the shot line without having to acknowledge the CTE line.

That is just my thought on the A, B, C without a full understanding of CTE/Pro1. I'm waiting for the new DVD.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Objectivity?

BeiberLvr said:
What's the difference between being able to see the CTE aim point vs. a contact point on the OB. If you can see one, then you can see the other, right?
Click to expand...

I think it took balls to get on this forum and openly question the objectivity of Pro One. Hope you're wearing something fireproof. Having said that, I'll also say that I agree with you, and I'd also like to know the answer to your question.

Although B seems objective enough, A and C not so much.

Dave -- Not sure what I'm doing
 
NobodySpecial said:
I think it took balls to get on this forum and openly question the objectivity of Pro One. Hope you're wearing something fireproof. Having said that, I'll also say that I agree with you, and I'd also like to know the answer to your question.

Although B seems objective enough, A and C not so much.

Dave -- Not sure what I'm doing
Click to expand...

If I had to throw out a guess, I'd say the CTE line has a lot to do with it.

If you're just looking for A or C, it's no different (to me) than looking for any other random contact point. When you add the CTEL to the equation, maybe that's what makes it easier to see A or C.
 
From the shooter's perspective of A, B and C, it is like a picture and they are finite and never changes. The shot at hand determines which is selected pre - cue shift and pre- pivot - If one shifts the tip and pivots.

Whereas the contact point on the equator of the OB is infinite and is determined by where the line from the pocket/target exits the OB. This may be hard to perceive for some.
 
BeiberLvr said:
... What's the difference between being able to see the CTE aim point vs. a contact point on the OB. If you can see one, then you can see the other, right?
Click to expand...

This point has been made before. And you also have the 1/8 points to find with CTE/Pro One.

I agree that finding the quarters and eighths is not perfectly objective. But I imagine it could be argued that they are a bit more objective for some people than keeping a contact point in sight. People are pretty good at dividing things in half visually. A and C are halfway between the center and the edges. The eighths are a little tougher, but they are halfway between the quarters and the edges.
 
Aw gee thanks for being so forgiving, but it is not needed. I have asked about what the difference is , but never got a real answer, just it's "better than" type of replies, so there was no need to keep beating a dead horse.

And I forgive you for not knowing about how I use Ghost Ball, ie, contact patch not contact point. Seems everyone keeps on wanting to believe ghost ball is all contact point even though contact patch is another version.

All aiming is done in your head using your imagination. There are no real world sights to use like in aiming a rifle. There are no points on the balls that anyone can see to use for aiming. The points or patch, in my case, is all in your head.

Pool is all bout visualization which includes all the aspects of a shot and not just aiming. You have to visualize the shot before you can do the shot. Visualization requires a very good imagination which is what everyone uses to see the whatever aiming method requires them to use to get the CB to wherever they want it to go.

The more you use your imagination, the better you get at using it and the better you get at visualizing the shots. This is HAMB is the only way to achieve a very high level of play.

Everything happens between your ears, this is a hard fact to accept because this means if you suck, it is solely your fault and not whatever you are using to aim or equipment used or played on. It seems alot of pool players are better at making excuse for their failures in pool than they are at shot making.

But if you never put in the time, you will never understand this. At some point you have to start saying to yourself "There is no reason for me to miss."

When I realized this, my attitude about my playing changed. I sense of confidence started to come forth that wasn't there before. Maybe the come from behind wins in 14.1 helped, maybe it's being called the Bank Master by the local players helped, maybe the local hot sticks not wanting to play me helped, maybe at all helped.

But realizing that the outcome of the match was solely between my ears is what helped the most and not how I get the CB to go where I want it to go.

Until you move pass about how something is done to just doing what you want done, your game will stay at the same level.
 
Last edited:
Agree with your comments Bieber, but I think the difference is you end up using A/C or B on most of your shots, so even though it can be argued that those 1/4 points are not as objective as say the middle or edges of the ball, you get used to "seeing" those points over and over again, as opposed to a more random distribution of contact points. Not to mention that CTEL helping to align you, and frankly from my experience that in itself is enough on a lot of the standard cuts that use A/C or 3/4 ball overlap essentially.

Through my experimentation with Pro1 and SEE, I can set up a normal cut - say 15 or 20 degrees, and when I am in the Pro1 position (edge to A and awareness of CTEL), I can also align just with the CTEL or using the shadow to center with SEE, and I can see all of this from the same position with my eyes. I frequently interchange these concepts during my play, something I've recently started doing. I find from certain positions having a stronger perception of the CTEL is helpful, where on others I can more clearly see the shadow to center alignment. Category 2 / alignment to B shots are also very similar, also similar to 90/90.

Many synergies between these systems, and all just different paths to the same true GB line. For me, the systems get me there more consistently than eyeballing the GB, double distance, etc. For others, they may not, or the systematic approach may not fit in with your personality. Different strokes for different folks... :)
Scott
 
The main difference is the actual aiming with one system versus using the other system as an alignment technique. I used contact point aiming for years. It worked for me as long as I compensated for the under cuts. I would adjust subconsciously and be inconsistent until my brain quieted down and the subconscious took over completely. Sometimes it would take hours to get into dead whack.

I worked too hard at aiming at a point on the object ball. When I started to understand the problem, I discovered Pro One, 90/90 and several other systems that let you align your body and trust in your setup to pocket balls. You are concerned with aiming at the cue ball and can learn to deliver a more accurate stroke to the object ball.

This has been a big part of the message by Stan and CJ, but many still try to control their "aiming" instead of trusting their alignment. When we're in dead stroke and the game is easy, are we relaxed, but still energetically enjoying the pi$$ out of every shot? That's because we stopped trying to be in charge of the physical part of our game. We trust in the alignment and good things happen.

I've been working on giving my brain the info it needs and moving into the correct alignment. If it doesn't feel right, I double check it. I've found that my eyes are not always right, so I trust my alignment. Aiming at a contact point was a crap shoot. Now I rely on my setup to create the shot angle.

Best,
Mike
 
Thanks for the replies everyone, and thanks for not giving me a hard time. I love Pro One, and everyday it's getting easier. Add that to the work I've been doing on my fundamentals and pattern play, pretty soon I'll be posting videos against the ghost :)
 
BeiberLvr said:
Everyone knows I'm a Pro One user, but I wanted to bring something up that I haven't seen anyone ask before. I'm actually really surprised that the Duckster hasn't already asked this, but he can be forgiven since he doesn't actually know CTE.

I've read from the CTE users that it's almost impossible to see where the GB is, or where the contact point is on the OB. That CTE is very objective.

With that I agree, except for one exception. The aim points, A, B, and C.

What's the difference between being able to see the CTE aim point vs. a contact point on the OB. If you can see one, then you can see the other, right?
Click to expand...

Not quite. You can mentally divide an object a lot easier than you can mentally imagine and hold an invisible point on an object. And if that object is a sphere then it's even harder to hold onto the real "contact point" without error. However you can divide a sphere mentally a lot easier because you can imagine slices and portions much easier. As well you can also see the exact center of the sphere because it always sits on the table at the exact center. Go up 1.125 inches and try to imagine a contact point on the equator and I bet you that you would be off more often than you would be on when looking at from a cut angle.

Dave Segal posted a online test where people had to place dots in the center of shapes and most failed to be able to do it accurately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top