^^^^ Probably conjecture.......
Fear of Feel
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
^^^^ Probably conjecture.......
Thanks Patrick.
That was sort of my guess for the nearly 90 different degrees of cut angles along with the margin for error of the pocket being larger than the balls.
So... about 75 possibilities with even 8 markers for one direction would certainly seem impossible without the use of 'feel'.
Thanks Again.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
So, for any given shot, you really think you are looking at 75 possibilities? Or even 8?
And what if you used a strict center pocket system, how many just for center pocket?
No... & no again.
For there to be only 8 possible cuts (in one direction) the OB would have to be within 12 inches of a 4.5" pocket. You can choose not to believe that, just like you can choose to believe in unicorns.
pj
chgo
1. There is no "center pocket system".
2. If there was, then you'd need an infinite number of cut angles from any distance.
pj
chgo
(Like!) this describes me and where i'm at very well. 98+% of my table time takes place in my basement on an 8 foot furniture table. but when i get to sub in on a league team, those Valley barboxes look totally foreign to me. change the appearance and behavior of the pockets, rails, balls cloth lighting... add a few missed shots, and it all comes crumbling down. quickly. a month ago, i went down, ignominiously, to a lesser player. thought i had it, didn't, couldn't find it, and paddled harder and harder in search of it. "it" being that groove when you can feel it. (i became my own Barry Manilow song. woe woe woe).
since then, i devoted a high % of basement time NOT trying to solidify that feel, but instead, about how i'm going to procede if/when that feel vanishes. if i thought i found the groove, i'd stop and walk away. if i didn't have the desire to shoot, i'd force myself into a 5-10 minute shotmaking session. working on the "cold start". i like that term, "markers". :grin:
"Fear of Feel".... reminds me of
.jpg)
Here's a look at the gaps left between the common fractional alignments.
The solid lines show where the CB must be in order to make the shot exactly into the center of the pocket (ignoring throw). The dashed lines on either side of each solid line show how far off the solid line the CB (at its base) can be and still make the shot with the same alignment (because the pocket is larger than the OB - in this case 4.5" corner pockets on a 9-foot table).
As you can see, many more shots fall between the "system alignments" than fall on them. These are the "geometric gaps" for this system.
Cookie, I assume you're asking about CTE. The reason nobody can define exactly the geometric gaps for CTE is that CTE has never clearly defined any system alignments. It names the same fractional points on the OB, but how they're used is always described mysteriously as "acquiring the visual" (which you learn to recognize through "experience"). That doesn't mean there aren't gaps, just that CTE isn't described clearly enough to define them.
pj
chgo
View attachment 14387
Attachments
Last edited:
These descriptive phrases are used to describe the fraction of CB/OB overlap as it appears from the shooter's perspective. That's why they're called "alignments". You should know this by now.
Funny that you've heard these terms for so long and still don't know what they mean.
pj
chgo
duckie.. It's not hitting the 1/2 ball.. It's aiming at 1/2 of the OB.. or at the edge of the OB.
If you aim the CB center, to hit the OB edge, it won't do it... but the OB goes 30 degrees.
Aim the CB center at the OB center and the OB goes straight. Aim at the OB edge and it
goes a 30 degree angle everytime. There is actually a visual point to aim at, not a guess.
.
Pat, why set yourself up like that? Really??? You make that statement and still can't figure out how to get the visuals in CTE???
Its nice just seeing the shot and then doing it. The best thing I ever worked on was to stop thinking about aiming.
Just see and do, there is no how.
Never a thought about 1/2 ball since it doesn't exist.
Never thought about the degree of cut angle since that isn't need to see where to put the cue ball.
Never a thought about unneeded reference angles or makers, just see where to out the cue ball.
Never a thought about squirt, swerve, deflection, just see where to put the cue ball.
This is what HAMB......practice is all about.
Until you get past thinking about aiming, you will never truly see your potential.
Just see and do, there is no how.
Never a thought about 1/2 ball since it doesn't exist.
Never thought about the degree of cut angle since that isn't need to see where to put the cue ball.
Never a thought about unneeded reference angles or makers, just see where to out the cue ball.
Never a thought about squirt, swerve, deflection, just see where to put the cue ball.
This is what HAMB......practice is all about.
Until you get past thinking about aiming, you will never truly see your potential.
So, hows this not thinking about aiming treating you? Hows the 14.1 going? Mosconis high run in your sights is it?
So, hows this not thinking about aiming treating you? Hows the 14.1 going? Mosconis high run in your sights is it?
LOL...what's in his sights and dreams is to not be spotted 60 balls in a race to 100
at his 14.1 league which is what he gets currently against a top player. Maybe he only gets 50 since hitting a million and a half balls.
Here's a look at the gaps left between the common fractional alignments.
The solid lines show where the CB must be in order to make the shot exactly into the center of the pocket (ignoring throw). The dashed lines on either side of each solid line show how far off the solid line the CB (at its base) can be and still make the shot with the same alignment (because the pocket is larger than the OB - in this case 4.5" corner pockets on a 9-foot table).
As you can see, many more shots fall between the "system alignments" than fall on them. These are the "geometric gaps" for this system.
Cookie, I assume you're asking about CTE. The reason nobody can define exactly the geometric gaps for CTE is that CTE has never clearly defined any system alignments. It names the same fractional points on the OB, but how they're used is always described mysteriously as "acquiring the visual" (which you learn to recognize through "experience"). That doesn't mean there aren't gaps, just that CTE isn't described clearly enough to define them.
pj
chgo
Bumped for second considerations as it seems that it's being ignored.
Good diagram Patrick.
Best 2 All,
Rick
Last edited:
Here's a look at the gaps left between the common fractional alignments.
The solid lines show where the CB must be in order to make the shot exactly into the center of the pocket (ignoring throw). The dashed lines on either side of each solid line show how far off the solid line the CB (at its base) can be and still make the shot with the same alignment (because the pocket is larger than the OB - in this case 4.5" corner pockets on a 9-foot table).
As you can see, many more shots fall between the "system alignments" than fall on them. These are the "geometric gaps" for this system.
Cookie, I assume you're asking about CTE. The reason nobody can define exactly the geometric gaps for CTE is that CTE has never clearly defined any system alignments. It names the same fractional points on the OB, but how they're used is always described mysteriously as "acquiring the visual" (which you learn to recognize through "experience"). That doesn't mean there aren't gaps, just that CTE isn't described clearly enough to define them.
pj
chgo
Bumped for second considerations as it seems that it's being ignored.
Good diagram Patrick.
Best 2 All,
Rick
This is laughable! And your understanding of CTE is even more laughable!
Stan Shuffett