Fear of Feel
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
Why don't you pick out one shot and one angle from your diagram, specifically from within the range of the full ball to the half ball shot.....just pick out one simple shot and angle: diagram it for for me...and a video would nice as well. Show us why it will not work!
You want to come after me....well here is another chance.
Stan Shuffett
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
ENGLISH, you too can pick out a single angle and shot from the CTE category that will not work....diagram and video it showing your knowledge and why it can't work, but you know what, again it is laughable to think that you will engage in anything other than fingering the keyboard.
Stan Shuffett
So Patrick,
What if one were to make a pivot from 1/2 tip parallel to both sides of the 'aiming alignment' shots? How much would that fill in for the uncovered angles?
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
PS I'd guess adding 10 angles & the pocket margin for error might leave about 40% still uncovered. Am I close?
Last edited:
It would not do anything from your perspective and performance because you fail to understand CTE perception....and therein is your problem with your line of questioning.
Stan Shuffett
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
It was ignored because it didn't answer the question.
I do like to understand everything SloppyP, but I'm aware of how thinking too much can be a big distraction when at the table trying to perform. Though I use systems to a degree, (e.g. BE, Tangent line, half ball 30 degree rolling CB etc) I'd say 90% of my performance is intuitive judgement.
Have enjoyed your contributions in this thread
Colin
T'was but a scratch :smile:
Not all people know when they've been nailed.
Couldn't help thinking of the Black Knight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAW6D21ICdg
Not saying who is who. I'll let the reader delude.
Last edited:
Studies have shown that doctors are less likely to get positive effects from placebos than laymen.
Hi Colin.
Were those studies regarding placebos for physical reasons only or were they also considered for mental health issues?
Best to You & All,
Rick
Though I made them up, I'm sure they exist, but imagining further, I'm convinced egomania was involved.
Colin
Like I said, where the f is my money? Seems like when the chips get pushed, Spidey gets air barreled, the room gets quiet and the pms roll in begging spidey to let a certain person out.T'was but a scratch
Not all people know when they've been nailed.
Couldn't help thinking of the Black Knight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAW6D21ICdg
Not saying who is who. I'll let the reader delude.
Hi Cookie,
Patrick's reply was to some questions that I posed to him regarding what would it take to basically take 'feel', the topic of the thread, out of the equation as it relates to the 'aiming' aspect of the game.
I think he answered my questions rather well, even though it brought up another one to my mind.
We use 'math' like geometry, etc. to explain the real physics of the world. Going to the moon & back, a 3 dimensional operation, can & is explained with 'math' like geometry, etc.
Calculating the volume of a sphere through the formula of V = 4/3 'Pie' r to the 3rd. power is a 3 dimensional solution. There is such a thing as 3 dimensional geometry. It is not all about pencil drawn shapes on a flat piece of paper as some seem to think.
Best 2 You & All,
Rick
Last edited:
Though I made them up, I'm sure they exist, but imagining further, I'm convinced egomania was involved.
Colin
Colin,
Now you've done it. You mentioned the dreaded "e" word on AZB.:wink:
Best 2 Ya,
Rick
Last edited: