Spot Shot Aiming Methods

[SpiderWebComm]

It didn't last long and wasn't meant to.

I posted THIS later which had nothing to do with CTE.

Here's one for you to try while you're doing the others. Has noting to do with CTE
but it does involve a pivot. Set the CB edge about 1 1/4" or so to the right from the second diamond on the left rail. With the CB in it's position, the shot line should be straight into the first diamond to the left of the pocket.

Your left hand or at least a couple of fingers will be on top of the side rail while you shoot it. Set up with your tip center CB aiming to the center of the OB which would
hit the OB into the diamond left of the pocket.

Now pivot your cue to the OUTSIDE on the CB about 1/2 tip so the right side of the tip is now at the center of the CB. If you use a small mm tip it might have to be a smidge more. No need to look where the cue is now pointing on the OB. Just stroke the shot on the new cue line. The OB will (should) go in. Might take a few shots to do it until you get used to the pivot especially if you don't or never use one.

Another way to do it is the same CB/OB setup but this time set up the INSIDE edge of your tip on the center of the CB and aiming it to the center of the OB. Pivot the middle of the tip back to center on the CB and take the shot. It will go IF and once you get used to pivoting.

A third way is a 90/90 but I'll hold off on that one because it's a larger offset and then pivoting back to center. You gotta get used to pivoting in small increments first.

Let me know if you nail the shots.

WHERE IS YOUR CONTRIBUTION? DID I MISS IT?

 

[cookie man]

I for one was enjoying the back and forth contributions from Spidey and Brian. Just a shame someone showed up to ruin it.

 

[BC21]

Credit should be given where credit is due and I have to say that was some pretty sporty shooting and you did a good job especially at that hour of the night.

So, what does that tell you about focusing and using your eyes and body to align and aim on a consistent basis with a system, especially when playing for money or tournament?

How in Gods name or how in the hell could "FEEL" have been more effective and a better way to go?

IT CAN'T!!

Thanks. As far as feel goes, I would call it what occurs when addressing the cb, when ensuring that your body and stroke are aligned properly through the cb to the ghostball, or to the fractional aim point (where your tip would be if your follow through could extend all the way to the ball), or to the spot you feel represents the correct offset from the contact point, etc... With CTE this process involves ensuring that your sweep or pivot lands precisely at ccb.

There is some very fine adjustment that occurs, regardless of aiming technique, while we are down on the cb. If you don't feel like you are perfectly lined up in accordance with what you are seeing then you shouldn't pull the trigger. If something doesn't look right, or something feels a little off, stand up and look at the shot again.

"Feel" can also be described as just knowing exactly how to aim a shot as soon as you see it, via rote. If I were to shoot 500 spot shots per day, using the fractional alignments I was using, eventually my brain would automatically recognize every shot and I'd be making those balls with less conscious effort. I wouldn't need the chalk markers on that end rail because I would simply know the shot as soon as my eyes see the position of the cb and ob on the table.

Regardless of rote, I also think you're correct about the benefits of using a system to ensure every shot, or at least critical shots, are aligned correctly. When you watch a great pro player like Aranas or Filler, they make 99.9% of every shot they shoot. They make it look automatic because it is automatic. They recognize the shots. But occasionally you'll see them stand behind the ob to look at the contact point. They already have an excellent idea of how to shoot the shot, but still they doublecheck it by referencing a system parameter. This ensures that what they feel is correct is in fact correct.

 

[BC21]

Big words I rarely use alert.

Still having difficulty consolidating this dichotomy of the infinity of precision available just for the looking versus those "at least I don't choke as much" shot approximation methods.

runs down the hall to logout...

Lol....I've probably read this 4 or 5 times now! Anytime I want a good chuckle I read it again, so I figured I'd give you a bug thumbs up for it.:thumbup:

 

[BC21]

Your red line is over the rail not the middle of the facing (1st diagram)
In your second diagram the 4th ball seems to extend to the facing
Brian showed in the video there is a zone where half ball aim works
Like your diagram shows only the borders of the zone is a little different
I think

I think PJ's second diagram is very close to what I was showing. It's slightly different only because his lines are in reference to the ghostball, not the middle of the ob as I was showing. The difference is only about 1 degree (1.1° to be exact), meaning his lines are about 1° different than mine would be if I made such a nice illustration. His is more accurate on paper/screen, but in reality I find it easier to reference the ob rather than referencing an imagined ghostball.

Collision induced throw isn't a constant. I mean, several factors contribute to the exact amount of throw that occurs...ball surface condition, cb speed, cb spin, shot angle.... So the best we can do is use a CIT that represents a rolling cb at about medium speed, which provides 2 to 3 degrees of throw for a halfball shot. So we can show lines or illustrate marginal "windows" all we want, but it's never really exact because we aren't robots. We can't produce the exact same shot conditions every time with such precision that one perfect "window" works. That's why in the video I say "about right in here", not "exactly right here". Well, if I didn't say that then I should have. Lol

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...in reality I find it easier to reference the ob rather than referencing an imagined ghostball.

If "in reality" (does that mean when actually aiming?) you're aiming at the OB's edge (a halfball hit), then I think in effect you are "referencing the ghostball".

pj - picking a nit
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Thanks. As far as feel goes, I would call it what occurs when addressing the cb, when ensuring that your body and stroke are aligned properly through the cb to the ghostball, or to the fractional aim point (where your tip would be if your follow through could extend all the way to the ball), or to the spot you feel represents the correct offset from the contact point, etc... With CTE this process involves ensuring that your sweep or pivot lands precisely at ccb.

Yes, I agree. The big time aiming for any conventional system occurs while standing, but the initial aim is not big time enough to finalize a perfect center cue ball alignment. The finishing touches must take place during full stance where feel is used for judging the final tip position.
CTE differs from conventional systems in that a perfect center cue ball can be seen while standing or down during full stance.

There is some very fine adjustment that occurs, regardless of aiming technique, while we are down on the cb. If you don't feel like you are perfectly lined up in accordance with what you are seeing then you shouldn't pull the trigger. If something doesn't look right, or something feels a little off, stand up and look at the shot again.

In CTE there are no adjustments to center cue ball. The CTE process, which is all visual, leads to a center cue ball that the player aligns to.


"Feel" can also be described as just knowing exactly how to aim a shot as soon as you see it, via rote. If I were to shoot 500 spot shots per day, using the fractional alignments I was using, eventually my brain would automatically recognize every shot and I'd be making those balls with less conscious effort. I wouldn't need the chalk markers on that end rail because I would simply know the shot as soon as my eyes see the position of the cb and ob on the table.

Sure, a player can become extremely skilled by way of repetition, but repetition in no way yields an objective center cue ball alignment. The alignment you are referring to is based upon trial and error. It’s impossible to describe the resolution for the perfect center cue for feel systems or you would have already done that. This is nothing new.

The debate here is not with your work, we all know that Poolology involves feel. The real debate is whether or not CTE can resolve center cue ball or not. Hal Houle was emphatic that CTE did just that. Stan claims the same thing and asserts that his TRUTH SERIES will bear that out.

Regardless of rote, I also think you're correct about the benefits of using a system to ensure every shot, or at least critical shots, are aligned correctly. When you watch a great pro player like Aranas or Filler, they make 99.9% of every shot they shoot. They make it look automatic because it is automatic. They recognize the shots. But occasionally you'll see them stand behind the ob to look at the contact point. They already have an excellent idea of how to shoot the shot, but still they doublecheck it by referencing a system parameter. This ensures that what they feel is correct is in fact correct.

We're getting closer but still a ways to go. All I can say is wait until it all comes out so we can be on the same page as what will be in front of you.
Book and Truth Series.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The real debate is whether or not CTE can resolve center cue ball or not.

There's no real debate about that - there's not even a real question. There's only those who grasp the obvious reality and those who don't.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

There's only those who grasp the obvious reality and those who don't.

pj
chgo

There are also those who think they know everything about everything and they hardly know anything about anything.

Pat Johnson - OWNED BY CTE FOR 22 YEARS!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

There's no real debate about that - there's not even a real question. There's only those who grasp the obvious reality and those who don't.

There are also those who think they know everything about everything and they hardly know anything about anything.

So that's a "don't grasp it"...

FOR 22 YEARS!

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

If "in reality" (does that mean when actually aiming?) you're aiming at the OB's edge (a halfball hit), then I think in effect you are "referencing the ghostball".

pj - picking a nit
chgo

I was mainly referring to referencing the cb and ob. Both balls are plainly visible, and from there I reference the ob itself for aiming. Sure, the end result puts the aim line through the ghostball, but I am not referencing the ghostball because It's not something that I can really see.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I was mainly referring to referencing the cb and ob. Both balls are plainly visible, and from there I reference the ob itself for aiming. Sure, the end result puts the aim line through the ghostball, but I am not referencing the ghostball because It's not something that I can really see.

Do you mean you first align CB-OB centers as a starting orientation? I'm too undisciplined to do it, but I've often thought it would have value to start every aiming task from the same place - another would be to start with half ball, midway in the cut range (there's probably a snappier name for it...).

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

In CTE there are no adjustments to center cue ball. The CTE process, which is all visual, leads to a center cue ball that the player aligns to.

Even Stan has admitted to the fact that a player must ensure, once they are in full stance, that their cue is in fact aligned to ccb. He said something like any final fine adjustment to ccb is no different than the adjustment one would normally use on any straight in shot. I can probably find that video, but I don't want to.

I'm just pointing out that when we address the cb we do whatever we have to do to ensure everything looks and feels right. We can call this fine tuning, adjusting, doublechecking, or whatever, but in the end it all comes down to one thing: Does it feel good. Do I feel like I am dead on line here, or does something feel wrong because it looks wrong? Usually, we pull the trigger anyway. If it looks wrong, it's because somewhere deep in your head your brain is sending a message, a "feeling" that something is off, because what you're seeing is either in conflict with or not registering with any knowledge you already have in storage. Either way, it calls for a restart. Stand up and look at the shot again, maybe pull another aiming tool out of the bag, like actually looking at the contact point.

 

[Dan White]

I for one was enjoying the back and forth contributions from Spidey and Brian. Just a shame someone showed up to ruin it.

What ruined it is not my comment but some people's hair trigger reaction to everything. What I said about Stan is true. He is mistaken that there is no way to KNOW the fractional hit on the ball. Poolology was out by then, I think, and he knew about it early on. What's the big deal? Some of you guys think Stan is some kind of a God who can never be in error or slip up on something.

It would really be refreshing, and would certainly lower the temperature in this forum, if someone could just say, "Yeah, maybe Stan was forgetting about that." I'd even settle for a well reasoned disagreement and/or counterpoint. Instead, there is a total whitewashing of the subject in favor of a nice dose of personal attacks. I'm not attacking Stan. I'm saying he is in error. Oh, the horror!!!

If you don't like my comment, simply ignore it and that will be that.

 

[BC21]

Do you mean you first align CB-OB centers as a starting orientation? I'm too undisciplined to do it, but I've often thought it would have value to start every aiming task from the same place - another would be to start with half ball, midway in the cut range (there's probably a snappier name for it...).

pj
chgo

Yes, starting off by looking where the ob goes if shot straight on, then stand behind the ob and look at the line it needs to travel in order to hit the pocket. These two things would probably be good additions to any psr. I don't always do it. But the psr is my most inconsistent part of playing pool. Working on that alone, the psr, I'm sure would bring solid consistency to most aspects of the game.

 

[Dan White]

Do you mean you first align CB-OB centers as a starting orientation? I'm too undisciplined to do it, but I've often thought it would have value to start every aiming task from the same place - another would be to start with half ball, midway in the cut range (there's probably a snappier name for it...).

pj
chgo

PJ - I'm sure Brian will reply, but I think what he means is that Poolology makes use of the alignment between the center cue ball and center object ball to lead you to a fractional hit. This provides an objective fraction that pockets the ball. It is then up to you to hit that fraction. (Despite what the detractors say, it does not primarily involve "feel.")

Anyway, your method of finding the spot shot position involves alignment between center cue ball and the half ball hit (aka ghost ball in this instance). Lining up the centers of both balls is not part of the preshot routine in Poolology. It is simply the starting point for calculating the required fractional hit. Once you have that fractional hit you can execute the shot in any way you wish.

Maybe that clarifies things?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ - I'm sure Brian will reply, but I think what he means is that Poolology makes use of the alignment between the center cue ball and center object ball to lead you to a fractional hit. This provides an objective fraction that pockets the ball. It is then up to you to hit that fraction. (Despite what the detractors say, it does not primarily involve "feel.")

Anyway, your method of finding the spot shot position involves alignment between center cue ball and the half ball hit (aka ghost ball in this instance). Lining up the centers of both balls is not part of the preshot routine in Poolology. It is simply the starting point for calculating the required fractional hit. Once you have that fractional hit you can execute the shot in any way you wish.

Maybe that clarifies things?

Oh, I missed the Poolology connection. Thanks!

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

PJ - I'm sure Brian will reply, but I think what he means is that Poolology makes use of the alignment between the center cue ball and center object ball to lead you to a fractional hit. This provides an objective fraction that pockets the ball. It is then up to you to hit that fraction. (Despite what the detractors say, it does not primarily involve "feel.")

Anyway, your method of finding the spot shot position involves alignment between center cue ball and the half ball hit (aka ghost ball in this instance). Lining up the centers of both balls is not part of the preshot routine in Poolology. It is simply the starting point for calculating the required fractional hit. Once you have that fractional hit you can execute the shot in any way you wish.

Maybe that clarifies things?

Regardless of Poolology or fractional aiming, it's not a bad idea to gather as much visual info as you can for every shot. This helps build shot recognition. Look at the line from cb center to ob center. Look at the line from the ob to the pocket. Then use whatever aiming method you would normally use. The extra visual information gets tagged to this certain shot. The more tags you can attach to any given shot the more likely your mind is going to recall or recognize that shot every time you see it.

 

[Dan White]

Regardless of Poolology or fractional aiming, it's not a bad idea to gather as much visual info as you can for every shot. This helps build shot recognition. Look at the line from cb center to ob center. Look at the line from the ob to the pocket. Then use whatever aiming method you would normally use. The extra visual information gets tagged to this certain shot. The more tags you can attach to any given shot the more likely your mind is going to recall or recognize that shot every time you see it.

I could see this being a good technique for shots you don't know well, but it seems like a little overkill for most other shots. I use the cb/ob line up and then sweep down into the shot until it looks right, but I don't stand behind the ob/pocket line unless it is a tricky shot. I guess I might make note of it while walking around the table, possibly.

 

[BC21]

I could see this being a good technique for shots you don't know well, but it seems like a little overkill for most other shots. I use the cb/ob line up and then sweep down into the shot until it looks right, but I don't stand behind the ob/pocket line unless it is a tricky shot. I guess I might make note of it while walking around the table, possibly.

I don't do it for every shot either. But Spider made a good point not too long ago...something about treating every shot with the same focus or purpose. I like this mentality. I mean, we take time to get a better look, or a different perspective, of a key shot or tough shot, to help ensure we make it, so why not put that extra effort on every shot?

Seriously, we tend to miss the easier shots, at least I do. I bear down on tough shots, give them extra attention, extra focus, and nail them. Then a few shots later, or a few games later, I miss a shot that was so simple I didn't bother giving it much attention or focus. So I am working on developing discipline, the discipline to treat every shot with equal respect. I have some very good nights where I never miss a shot. I think if I had the discipline to treat ever shot like a key shot I'd have morenof these nights.