The Simplest Aiming Systems to Visualize and Use
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
I am strictly talking about pocketing balls, cb to ob to pocket.
You are correct. To visualize and use ghostball with accurate consistency does require HAMB.
Ghostball is easy to teach and describe.
It's just not that easy to implement. I remember Tom Rossman showing me how the ghostball center is always 1.125" from the outer surface of the ob on every shot, but when I pointed out the fact that the 1.125" is always skewed (looks different from different shot perspectives) and only looks like 1.125" on a super thin cut, he just smiled and said, "It's always the same distance". Lol.
My point: On paper, or when standing directly over the ob, ghostball is very simple to explain. On a table, however, standing behind the cb, ghostball is not easy to implement. It's trial and error until you've done it enough times to get good at it. And there's nothing wrong with that if you have the time to invest in it.
Cranfield's Arrow.
And Ducky comes out of the closet lol
...and I think "proficiency" in any system requires HAxB. X= whatever many balls to build the mental memory.
Agree..., and I think that's why those who use something like ghost ball do it's visualization while standing. Once they have determined the GB location they then extrapolate the aim line from its center and move into their PSR.
Speaking for only myself. I tend to skip over the extrapolated aim line and move right into HAMB recognition. Not sure when this whole 'zone' thing is suppost to take over, but if I'd hazard a guess I would say it's when this consicous HAMB recognition shifts into auto.
I had to google search that back to AZB...lol
I think that's the same thing JB used in one of his videos wherein he attempted to debunk GB as an effective aiming method. It's a pretty entertaining video.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
OB
It will look like it will go in, same as with your current method. What I'm having you try is CTE but mixed with your current system. When it looks right with your current system that will give you a baseline for how it should look with CTE. I don't mean make it look the same, but you can check that your CTE aim is right with your current method. You know how and where to hit it with your current method, it will be the same with CTE but it will look a bit different. It's really not re-inventing the wheel, it's just a different way of doing things. The visual aspects are different and about the only way to get it to click is to fiddle around with it a bit. I'm sure a certified CTE instructor or someone more well versed could get you onto it much quicker but knowing nothing of it I had to just experiment around with it a bit. The dual references and the tick/round barn thing does fine tune well.
You have to estimate the angle. I say the pocket is relevant because you have to know where you're shooting to choose the visual. IDK if this is the official stance or not. I gave up long ago on trying to understand the consensus on it because there are differing opinions as far as I can tell.
This may be blasphemous to say, but if it looks right I will fire away, if not I'll do the tick/barn thing and that usually makes it look correct. It basically helps you fine tune your aim on the OB.
People should look at this picture with the CTE reference lines and report back to discuss what they see. Where would the OB hit if you shot it?
I tried to warn you, but I will easily answer this part for you.
The difference is the placement and alignment of your vision center to the location of the balls on the table. The ticks thing is an explanation, not something you actually do,, you realize how it works if or when you ever realize what it means, but it's is certainly not mandatory,,,, I never ticked a cue ball yet, purposely, it just happens in the process. If you move anything, either ball or both balls, it's a different shot, so no "just fire away", ever. There is a process to get to the correct line and every shot requires a new one.
Last edited:
Here's the dumb part. If you can precision put your face to a shot you can for sure precision put your cue to a shot and that's the one that belongs.
I think what you're doing is not CTE. According to CTE the pocket is only used to choose the perception you are going to use. This is done while standing, even done while walking to the shot after finishing the last one, and should take only a second. In that second you are not lining up the shot you are merely getting a granular look at the balls and pocket to learn which perception is needed. After that, they say, you can put up the curtain because the pocket is now irrelevant. All you need to do now is find your lines and do the pivot (or follow the various later iterations of CTE, now called CTE Pro1).
It seems like you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no "look right" and no ticking until it "looks right." Again, the pocket is irrelevant. I know you don't claim to be a CTE user, but in our earlier discussions with cookie I wasn't sure whether you completely understood and/or followed the idea that the pocket is not relevant to the shot after determining which perception to use (in other words, there is no "looks right" in CTE unless you want to apply that term to finding the parallax line and the NISL).
I think we have a pretty different idea of what "easily answer" means.
ok well, look at it like this. With contact point and GB aiming one tries to get their vision center focused on the aim line to make the ball. With CTE that is the last place you want to be, not like do that last, but like, "don't do that!". By being off the aim line the vision is able to see either an inside sight line to thin the cut, or an outside sight line to thicken the cut, whichever solves the shot. Then is just an inside or outside pivot or sweep to CCB, which is the only real aiming you do. Aim at CCB.
That's all fine, but nothing about what you just said puts you on the shot line automatically. You still have to know when the shot looks right, just like any other method. The CTE guys, I guess you included, think that simply by finding the lines and pivoting etc that the aiming method finds the shot line for you. Poolology is the only method that really does that.
If I were you I wouldn’t bother with Dan anymore. He’s not here to learn CTE as you can see by his responses. He’s just here to pick apart anything that is said about CTE.
There you go with "shot line" again, although it is correct for what YOU do. Otherwise, it doesn't penetrate that thick skull as being a non-factor for what we do.
When balls go into the chosen pocket at an extremely high percentage, it must be. Just not something thought about or obsessed about beforehand.
Yes, Poolology. A system you choose not to use at all. Must be because YOUR method is even BETTER! I mean if Poolology is THAT deadly why would you opt out of using it? (Your words). Please post the specifics of what you see and do that makes it better than Poolology. Hell, I might give it a shot myself and become a Dan White pool doppleganger.
Last edited:
You better ask Brian this question. Dan hasn't actually learned Poolology.
And poolology is not designed to use all the time, whatever that's supposed to mean. But in reality i do believe thats its probably a pretty good system, but like Dan i've never studied it either.
How would anybody “learn” CTE here? The only “instruction” available here is “buy the book!”. I don’t see any real evidence that there are even actual CTE users here.
What are you here to do? You don’t even go to the trouble to pick apart anything said about CTE - blanket denial is all you got.
pj
chgo
It's not the place to "learn" CTE.
Not true. DON'T but the book if you're too cheap or broke. Get it free on Youtube.
Do you even know what to look for? We're the ones who don't use contact points...don't use fractions...don't use "FEEL"...don't fidget before stroking...and the head doesn't go bobbing up and down at any point like a reptile.