End thread....
Ghostball in conjunction with ob fractional references can help train the mind quicker than simply using an estimated ghostball. Giving your brain that added visual reference is very useful.
The Simplest Aiming Systems to Visualize and Use
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
Ghostball in conjunction with ob fractional references can help train the mind quicker than simply using an estimated ghostball. Giving your brain that added visual reference is very useful.
I use a type of ghostball and the OB contact point. I estimate where I need to aim the CB's center in relation to the contact point (i.e., the ghostball center), but without visualizing or even thinking of the ghostball. Is that "two factor" aiming in your book?
pj
chgo
When you look at the ob contact point from the cb perspective, you are picking a specific point on the ob. Your eyes capture that point along with the entire width of the ob, so your mind also gets a proportional aiming reference. Eventually (with enough estimating/experience/trial-and-error) you get more consistent at recognizing where to aim ccb in relation to that ob reference point.
The same development process happens with all methods of aiming: Do it enough times and your mind finally figures out how to make it work more often than not.
my "dual aiming"
is i "see" a contact point ...if i hit there...it goes there...
but also an overlap between the cue ball and object ball
on top of that i see fraction points on the object ball to aim at that coincide with all of the above.
then i shoot......................................................................................and miss
.........................sigh
is i "see" a contact point ...if i hit there...it goes there...
but also an overlap between the cue ball and object ball
on top of that i see fraction points on the object ball to aim at that coincide with all of the above.
then i shoot......................................................................................and miss
.........................sigh
I think in the end all aiming comes down to judging the overlap. The rest is how we get along with that uncomfortable fact.my "dual aiming"
is i "see" a contact point ...if i hit there...it goes there...
but also an overlap between the cue ball and object ball
on top of that i see fraction points on the object ball to aim at that coincide with all of the above.
then i shoot......................................................................................and miss
pj
chgo
I agree that visually it all boils down to recognizing the overlap, the cb-ob relationship needed to pocket the ball. How quickly the mind arrives at this visual state of awareness, however, is where the various aiming methods differ from each other.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
The real question, when you shoot it, does it FEEL right?
This is why I struggle with all these systems that pay attention to the OB at all and claim GB plays no role. Unless you're so low on the CB that it hides the fractional hit on the OB then you must be applying some level of GB for that overlap visualization. No one will ever convince me that when they look at the OB that they don't at some moment envision the collision between CB/OB.
Applying Poolology's math/target generation in drills is the first time in my life that I didn't visualize some kind of GB overlap before pulling the trigger. The positive results blew my mind.
I have zero doubt I'll be told I am, but not proven wrong by the usual crowd. Just the view from the bleachers.
phreaticus
Well-known member
No argument from me. Its very unclear why some folks are so passionate (even militant) about their chosen method of visualizing balls. We all have different methods & techniques to accomplish the same goals, and can learn and adapt to new ones, if desired. GB diagrams are nice & clean on paper but for some reason when visualizing the balls and shot lines GB just doesn’t feel intuitive or appear obvious to me - but after I’ve used contacts points, fractions, or the CTE/TOI ish methods that I’ve settled on, to see and align to the shot-line - then if I think about it, the GB image does seem to present itself. But I see no reason to discount the GB method - for some folks that might be a more natural method, and the exact inverse is true for them. A lot has to do with how we’ve initially trained our brain (through methodical training, or HAMB) and how many “reps” each of us has put into a certain visualization method. So called “muscle memory” is really technically referred to as neuroplasticity, and its quite interesting to learn how it actually works (at least to me) here’s an overview for anyone else interested.
That said, I believe some methods can be argued to have certain physical & mental pros/cons that can be contrasted analytically. I tried to give some of the pros & logic for why I’ve settled on what I have earlier in the thread, but obviously these same pros/cons may not hold true the same for everyone, as we all have so many individual variables associated with our backgrounds and physiological attributes.
I think if some folks invested even a small fraction (pun intended) of the time they spend posting online diatribes - into simply digesting some of these concepts & experimenting with them on the table, they might discover new things. Any change from what we are used to - will feel awkward at first and new techniques have a learning curve. For some that “cost” (in time/effort/ego) apparently ranges from annoying to unbearable - this pretty much applies to most things in life, yes? When I decided to make changes to my stance/alignment fundies last year, it was super painful, my game & confidence took a huge dip for over a month. But the gains since have been large and now I can’t imagine any other better way of approaching the table.
I saw an interview somewhere sometime with Fedor Gorst - in a discussion on training - he mentioned that if/when he makes changes to his fundies - he knows it will take at least a month to work through, and has to carefully factor that into his pro travel/tourney schedule. Seems like a lot of food for thought there. (Sorry don’t have the ref/link handy)
Cheers
I’ve never visualized a ghost ball and if you are concerned about overlaps then why wouldn’t you aim from an offset? Start from cb edge instead of cb center for your overlap. That narrows everything down to just half the cb and half the OB
That sounds and is way too easy especially when the CB edge is so apparent and jumps right out at the player. Takes all the fun and challenge out of guessing and feel once it's ingrained. (not to mention the fun of calculating every area of math and physics
into the equation to achieve the ultimate fulfilment of pocketing simple everyday shots that come up over and over)
And this has nothing to do with the magical 3 letter method. I think the word "edge" is terrifying and means the potential to be crossing the line into the Twilight Zone, heaven forbid.
dendweller
Well-known member
I used to not use any aiming system.
Over the last few years I've looked at a couple including poolology and a few youtube tutorials on other's including cte. I found the idea of using the diamonds to calculate a fractional hit in poolology had pretty immediate benefits. On some shots I use it as well as picking a spot on the cloth behind the ob accommodating for throw etc.
I thought CJ's vid that I can't find anymore where he explains his use of fractional aiming pretty helpful. Not the TOI stuff, think it was prior to that. Generally, if he had a quarter ball hit, he aimed at the ob edge from a quarter ball stance on the cb, then parallel shifted to center.
I think they all just contribute to a player's ability to categorize/organize shots in their minds. Whatever works. Everyone is different.
Over the last few years I've looked at a couple including poolology and a few youtube tutorials on other's including cte. I found the idea of using the diamonds to calculate a fractional hit in poolology had pretty immediate benefits. On some shots I use it as well as picking a spot on the cloth behind the ob accommodating for throw etc.
I thought CJ's vid that I can't find anymore where he explains his use of fractional aiming pretty helpful. Not the TOI stuff, think it was prior to that. Generally, if he had a quarter ball hit, he aimed at the ob edge from a quarter ball stance on the cb, then parallel shifted to center.
I think they all just contribute to a player's ability to categorize/organize shots in their minds. Whatever works. Everyone is different.
I'm never concerned about anything. I just find the notion of someone playing pool, and them never visualizing the collosion between CB/OB funny. That said, I expected the responses to my comment to follow the required bias.
What is "fundies"...?No argument from me. Its very unclear why some folks are so passionate (even militant) about their chosen method of visualizing balls. We all have different methods & techniques to accomplish the same goals, and can learn and adapt to new ones, if desired. GB diagrams are nice & clean on paper but for some reason when visualizing the balls and shot lines GB just doesn’t feel intuitive or appear obvious to me - but after I’ve used contacts points, fractions, or the CTE/TOI ish methods that I’ve settled on, to see and align to the shot-line - then if I think about it, the GB image does seem to present itself. But I see no reason to discount the GB method - for some folks that might be a more natural method, and the exact inverse is true for them. A lot has to do with how we’ve initially trained our brain (through methodical training, or HAMB) and how many “reps” each of us has put into a certain visualization method. So called “muscle memory” is really technically referred to as neuroplasticity, and its quite interesting to learn how it actually works (at least to me) here’s an overview for anyone else interested.
That said, I believe some methods can be argued to have certain physical & mental pros/cons that can be contrasted analytically. I tried to give some of the pros & logic for why I’ve settled on what I have earlier in the thread, but obviously these same pros/cons may not hold true the same for everyone, as we all have so many individual variables associated with our backgrounds and physiological attributes.
I think if some folks invested even a small fraction (pun intended) of the time they spend posting online diatribes - into simply digesting some of these concepts & experimenting with them on the table, they might discover new things. Any change from what we are used to - will feel awkward at first and new techniques have a learning curve. For some that “cost” (in time/effort/ego) apparently ranges from annoying to unbearable - this pretty much applies to most things in life, yes? When I decided to make changes to my stance/alignment fundies last year, it was super painful, my game & confidence took a huge dip for over a month. But the gains since have been large and now I can’t imagine any other better way of approaching the table.
I saw an interview somewhere sometime with Fedor Gorst - in a discussion on training - he mentioned that if/when he makes changes to his fundies - he knows it will take at least a month to work through, and has to carefully factor that into his pro travel/tourney schedule. Seems like a lot of food for thought there. (Sorry don’t have the ref/link handy)
Cheers
Thank you
Seems like your response to me has the most bias. How was my response biased? Did you assume that because I use CTE? I never once mentioned CTE in my response. So forget CTE. Don’t you think visualizing the collision by just using the inside half of the cb hitting the outside half of the OB easier. Of course you have no experience with it so you really can’t give an honest answer. I’ve done it both ways for extended periods of time.
I agree with Cookie. The only BIAS is YOURS for thinking and claiming our response was about CTE. You have CTE on the brain, not us in our responses.
If the edge of the pure white CB is linked with a contact point or fraction on a colored ball, how does that detract from visualizing the collision between CB/OB? It's a TWO WAY visual with one backing up the other. Both can be seen simultaneously.
Also, a lot easier than trying to link up contact points to equal and opposite contact points or fractions with the fat center part of the CB to another fat part of the OB or even outside of the OB through the imagination.
We've been playing for many years and used what you use for linking up CB to OB whether it's Contact points, fractions, GB, or collisions. And we used it quite successfully. YOU don't and haven't used what we NOW use. You don't know how nor want to learn which is 100% fine with me. I could care less. My advice is stay away from it. Just be happy doing what you're doing.
This post of mine and advice applies to everyone on this forum. Just do what you do.
Last edited:
Good advice. Just don't lie (or be deliberately ignorant) about what you do and everybody will get along. Oh, I'm not necessarily talking about CTE so don't have CTE on your brain, either.
I will admit, I have lied to a number of women in my lifetime. From little white lies to whoppers.
I've been on a lot of different forums pool related as well as subjects totally removed from pool. I have NEVER seen "everybody" getting along. It can go from good to tolerant to brutally hostile on any of them at any time. You should just worry about yourself. Your advice to me isn't welcome.
Last edited:
So you make a typical Dick Dan post and then want everyone to get along.
How about you adding to the current conversation instead
I think Spider just made the "dick" post. He said he lies to women. I think we know what about.
Don't take everything so seriously.