BHE vs FHE

[Cornerman]

I remember in previous conversations about this it was suggested that the shadow likely moves as the ball changes position on the table - or from table to table with different lights. Does it always look/work the same for you?

pj
chgo

I never noticed if there’s any change. I think it mostly depends on how much the ball sinks into the cloth. I think if we still had nappy cloth, there would be a significant difference, but I’m thinking that the shadows wont affect anything. Now I need to look.

Is the crook point at 1/4 ball? It might be. It’’s more like 1/8 from center.

 

[bbb]

Here is a picture example of the vertical horizon, Left bottom, Center Bottom and Right Bottom. The picture is helpful as it kind of makes it easier to view in 2D..... As the CB-OB relationship changes.....the vertical horizon and bottom of ball reference points also change.
View attachment 744916
For this shot since it is obviously a cut to the left....you simply aim center CB to the cut left point where the cloth and ball meet.....(you can see the triangle that forms between the cloth and the ball)

You can see I am not really even looking at the where the pocket is.....I am just setting up to center CB to the bottom of the ball where it meets the cloth.........You basically ignore the 3D aspect of the ball and look at it in 2d.....It kind of forms a little triangle on each side......(On the right side cutting to the left and left cutting to the right)....If the shot were dead straight you shoot to the center of the OB I am not promoting NOT looking at where the pocket is....or taking time to align.....but...what I am getting at is......you "almost" don't have to for many shots.

your first video states you are aiming at the bottom of the object ball and cutting the ball in
if you as you say in that post shouldnt the result be a straight into the rail shot ...correct?
in the second post where you state you are using the cut left spot makes more sense
isnt this a type of fractional aiming?

 

[BRKNRUN]

The allowed error in where the cue ball lands left-right of the perfect spot is proportional to the cosine of the cut angle. That means:

A 60-degree cut shot has half the allowed error as a straight-in.

A 75-degree cut shot has about 1/4 the allowed error as a straight-in.

If you set up the 60-degree shot, it seems much more than twice as hard as the straight-in but I think that's because we have less practice shooting the thinner cuts.

Thanks Bob......I knew somebody much smarter than me would be able to put the math to it.....

 

[BRKNRUN]

I love it! That triangle point where the ball meets the cloth is what I call “the crook,” like the crook of an elbow. I use both the OB and CB crooks as reference points. This was one of those things that I also spoke to Hal about, and he said, “yeah, yeah, you could use that point.”

I never noticed if there’s any change. I think it mostly depends on how much the ball sinks into the cloth. I think if we still had nappy cloth, there would be a significant difference, but I’m thinking that the shadows wont affect anything. Now I need to look.

Is the crook point at 1/4 ball? It might be. It’’s more like 1/8 from center.

I think we most likely shoot with very similar methods......I am having flashbacks on my conversations with Hal.....The very first conversation was where he told me about the 3-line concept (CB 1/4ball / edge)........IIRC that is the first method of all of them he would teach.....basically the "entry level" version.

messing with the method I noticed that 1/4 ball was the point where the ball lifts away from the cloth....aka where the ball meets the cloth....

It was easier for me to reference CB and 1/4 ball by looking at the base of the ball instead of a point 1/2 way up.......but for the edge line I could see it 1/2 way up.......I would also use the tip of my cue to find center CB by starting with the tip on the cloth at the base of the CB.....

On a later call I asked him if what I was doing was acceptable....His reply was "are you making balls"?......LOL....He said it does not matter how you get the balls in the pocket....if you can get them there...you are doing it right for you...

RE: your crook to crook comment......I actually use that is well.....IIRC I think Hal referred to this as Shish-ke-bob.......I much prefer starting CB on every shot.....and I do for anything on the ball......Anything off the ball (tip going through center GB to space)......I use your crook to crook reference.....I just call it triangle to triangle as it fits with the rest of my goofy "triangle" methods.....(I instead of going behind the OB to pocket line....I stand CB to pocket line....I see the "triangle" relationship between the CB-OB-Pocket and the track lines....which helps me determine which alignment point I am using.....I also build a stance that has my back foot on the shot line and my front foot parallels to the shot line but point back toward the right side of the CB...left handed shooter....creates a triangle stance).....Anyway.....I will use the triangles on the CB/OB to line up (like the 90/90 method)....then pivot the cue (in this case using my hip/torso) to center.....effectively it subtracts the 1/4 ball and you now have a center CB alignment with edge to edge contacts.....(apply BHE from there)

I never got ALL the methods he taught ....Good times though

 

[BRKNRUN]

your first video states you are aiming at the bottom of the object ball and cutting the ball in
if you as you say in that post shouldnt the result be a straight into the rail shot ...correct?
in the second post where you state you are using the cut left spot makes more sense
isnt this a type of fractional aiming?

Yes...I may not have explained it very well....There is a center point where the ball meets the cloth....Perhaps a better term would be I align where the ball lifts away from the cloth....there is a left side and a right side (looking at it in 2d).....aim to the right side to cut left....aim to the left to cut right.......I believe every ones perception will be just slightly different...but once you have identified "your spot" you can make very many shallow angle shots all over the table just by aiming to that spot......to me it almost feels like cheating and I am giving away some long hidden secret....that is how powerful it is to me anyway

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Thanks Bob......I knew somebody much smarter than me would be able to put the math to it.....

The math doesn't NEED to be put to it to add to the accuracy and validity or detract from it by anyone. Before too long, I can smell the negative crap coming out by the abacus and blackboard users saying this doesn't work on a certain cut angle because...and then because. And before you know it, the same crap will happen as it did for CTE. Advanced math class kicks in and it starts all over again.
Hal would be rolling over in his grave right now if he saw it being added to a math and science class by the same individuals that were around doing it when he was still alive almost 30 years ago.

What Hal taught was a 100% VISUAL way to link the CB to the OB to the target pocket. The OB targets are COB, OBE, and halfway between center and edge. If fractional math was added, 1/4 and 3/4 of the OB. Not Algebraic, advanced Geometry or otherwise! On the CB, it starts a tip inside of CCB for a cut of any amount and then pivoted back to CCB in incremental amounts of the TIP of the cue that could put it a full tip beyond CCB for the cut angles. For more acute cuts, the aim line would be 1/4, 3/4 , or edge of OB.
The primary part is keeping the eyes on the pivoted TIP of the cue and which part of it as far as where its aimed on the OB.

That's the math! And why did I make the post like I just did that may seem harsh to some? To nip it in the bud before it takes off as it usually has with some form of pecking away and discrediting.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The allowed error in where the cue ball lands left-right of the perfect spot is proportional to the cosine of the cut angle. That means:

A 60-degree cut shot has half the allowed error as a straight-in.

A 75-degree cut shot has about 1/4 the allowed error as a straight-in.

If you set up the 60-degree shot, it seems much more than twice as hard as the straight-in but I think that's because we have less practice shooting the thinner cuts.

Didn't know that - thanks!

Apologies (to those affected) for mentioning math without a trigger warning...

pj
chgo

 

[The_JV]

Yesterday I did a little warm up on a snooker table for a tourney I'll be playing it today. Been about 30yrs since I hit a competitive ball in that game.

After 20mins or so I have changed my tune. I'm fully adopting zero application of english with either hand and for sake of my sanity, employing the "guess method" of aim.

 

[Poolmanis]

Yesterday I did a little warm up on a snooker table for a tourney I'll be playing it today. Been about 30yrs since I hit a competitive ball in that game.

After 20mins or so I have changed my tune. I'm fully adopting zero application of english with either hand and for sake of my sanity, employing the "guess method" of aim.

yeah. i play all games and can play one day pool, Snooker, 3-cushion, Finnish Kaisa and Chinese 8-ball. Going through for 4 different size balls and different deflection is much. If i play snooker serious match I will use no sidespin 90% of time because it is just too punishing. After I get couple frames done and warmed up I start use it too.

 

[pw98]

I've been more than polite, factual, and patient.

I've noticed when people are losing debates, they tend to twist others' words and make personal attacks. You lost this debate nearly before it began.

And since you twist words on this forum, I'd gladly describe clearly squirt/swerve corrections and more, via VIDEO.

Either put up a video or shut up.

Then put up a video of you shooting and reshooting the shots 5 times without editing or shut up. Tell us how you do it with clear instructions. Before the shot clearly explain the path the cb will take and stop at.

If your method works do well the video should speak for itself regardless of how good or bad pj's would be.

 

[pw98]

Yes, there is a remote chance. It's called a snowballs chance in hell for all names mentioned.
Here's Landon Shuffett a few years ago against Earl Strickland on a 10' table. It was a "close" match. LMAO

So what. Let him play someone his own level not a world beater. And let your cte world beaters play someone who uses no aiming system like filler.

 

[pw98]

I honestly dont know what this means. If you watch a real backhand user use backhand english, the movement would be so small that getting in alignment is no work at all. I dont know if the instructors are exaggerating the motions so you can see it, but every time we have these threads, I go to my table and end up asking how anyone can say that I’m not an alignment, my stroke isn’t straight with my body, etc. etc. the move I make is so slight. We’re talking movement in the same ballpark as tightening up your fist when it was already in a loose fist position!

Every time Nick Varner uses english, he uses backhand english. Go watch a video to see if you can see it, see if he’s out of alignment, etc. Nick called it “locking in the english.” I dont mean to make a call to a higher authority. If you dont see the backhand motion, then we need to find another example to show the incredibly small motion.

Take a look at this video that Colin did a Zillion years ago when he’s not trying to demonstrate, and he actually pretty much just gets down to shoot the ball., The movement in the restless body to realign is almost imperceptible. But even if he does move, it’s not something gargantuan.
Take a look for example, at the shot he takes right at 17 minutes. Remember, he still trying to Demonstrate. He’s not shooting across his body or anything like that. The motion is so small.

NV A.19 - Colin Colenso's back-hand-english saga (for squirt compensation) - Dr. Dave Pool Info

billiards.colostate.edu

I've been surprised by this thread. I didn't realize there were players who are at a minimum - very good amateurs, that come down on the center ball aim line and adjusted (however they do it) from there.

I'm wondering now if there are modern pros that do the same. I recognize some of the older guard did this or something very similar. Someone like Bustamante. I also wonder if it's the players that are down on the ball longer. Someone like Morra, Kaci, or Styer. I know Styer is a CTE guy but just talking about BHE.

I would think you could observe this on video, not that I've looked for it specifically. My hunch is the faster players are getting down really close to the required aim line as opposed to the center ball line.

I think from watching videos that bergman air pivots but I cannot confirm this.

 

[straightline]

Say there's 2 methods. The spin has to be there somehow. All the pivoting or preset. I miss something?

 

[pw98]

I don't know...I wonder if in an attempt to explain in detail, what one does at the table, they combine the subconscious and conscious parts of their routine. The finding of the center ball aim line just doesn't seem like something a "pro" would ever have to do consciously, since if they can't see that line then they probably aren't a pro, aside from the odd difficult shot. But maybe we all at least start with this subconsciously. Guess you'd have to in a hierarchical sense. So we are all building off of the same starting position. I'm guessing I see this overlap while standing, and adjust my body from there as I'm stepping into the shot.

The whole conversation about what we do is really more of a conversation about what we think we do as something as complex as aiming and applying english takes on a life of its own. Knowing which part of the process is conscious vs subconscious is hard to pin down as we turn it all into a conscious activity when we are analyzing it. We could all probably write down a 25 step process for this that takes place in less than a second. So what's really going on?

Sez you, and even a stick of dynamite isn't going to change your thought processes because you're so locked into what you think and believe. Where does "randomly" come into the picture? Who said that? The TIP, the TIP, the TIP, the TIP of the cue
tells you what amount and how much movement is required. NOTHING IS RANDOM!! And YES, it's solid mechanics!

He says randomly because the layout is random and there is no telling which shot comes after anotger

 

[BRKNRUN]

He says randomly because the layout is random and there is no telling which shot comes after another

Unless of course you are Efren......I watched Efren play one pocket against a local public opinion very good one pocket player that knew the right shots.........I watched Efren.....He knew what the other player was going to do and where the CB was going to end up before the other player knew what he was going to do and where the CB was going to end up.

Efren would hit his shot....and while his opponent was thinking...he would walk around to the side of the table where the CB was going and wait.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So what. Let him play someone his own level not a world beater. And let your cte world beaters play someone who uses no aiming system like filler.

This has to be the most moronic post ever made since AZB was created! Hack players like you can't and won't ever come close to beating Tony the drunk in some old run-down pool hall in a bad part of town anywhere USA. He was beating pro players since his mid-teens. This one was even on a 10' table. His own level IS the pro player since beating every amateur his age throughout his early years and teens.

Did Filler tell you personally that he doesn't use an aiming system? Everyone that plays pool, especially pro players, use a visual way or method to line CB to OB to pocket for all shots just like aiming a pistol or rifle with the sights. All anyone has to do is watch their eyes going up and down, back and forth. What the hell do you think they're doing if it isn't carefully lining up the balls to the pocket? If they say they don't use one, it's because the explanation to every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets on their nerves and it's a good way to get out of the time-consuming explanation.
There are many different ways to "AIM" or "SIGHT" the relationship of CB to OB to pocket. A pistol can be drawn and hip fired by "FEEL" or raised higher in the direction of the body or head but not very accurate for the average person or even pro. That's why most all guns have AIMING SIGHTS and method associated with it. https://pistolwizard.com/guides/sights

What's really even more hilarious than your goofball post, is how the Aiming Forum on this website has morphed into the
NON-AIMING forum! I LOVE IT! In their quest to belittle and eradicate CTE, the five or six zealots who have been fighting and discrediting it for almost 30 years have convinced themselves and anyone weak-minded enough to listen and participate that aiming is about "FEEL". You just magically go into this state of Zen each time and "SEE" the shot or "FEEL" the magic alignment contact points or other visuals that vibrate the entire body for "you'll know it when you see it". SHOOT! ROTFLMAO!
Only on AZB can this happen.

Anyway, thanks for posting what you did because "POOF", you're gone. A very easy decision to make with IGNORE.

 

[pw98]

This has to be the most moronic post ever made since AZB was created! Hack players like you can't and won't ever come close to beating Tony the drunk in some old run-down pool hall in a bad part of town anywhere USA. He was beating pro players since his mid-teens. This one was even on a 10' table. His own level IS the pro player since beating every amateur his age throughout his early years and teens.

Did Filler tell you personally that he doesn't use an aiming system? Everyone that plays pool, especially pro players, use a visual way or method to line CB to OB to pocket for all shots just like aiming a pistol or rifle with the sights. All anyone has to do is watch their eyes going up and down, back and forth. What the hell do you think they're doing if it isn't carefully lining up the balls to the pocket? If they say they don't use one, it's because the explanation to every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets on their nerves and it's a good way to get out of the time-consuming explanation.

What's really even more hilarious than your goofball post, is how the Aiming Forum on this website has morphed into the
NON-AIMING forum! I LOVE IT! In their quest to belittle and eradicate CTE, the five or six zealots who have been fighting and discrediting it for almost 30 years have convinced themselves and anyone weak-minded enough to listen and participate that aiming is about "FEEL". You just magically go into this state of Zen each time and "SEE" the shot. ROTFLMAO!
Only on AZB can this happen.

Anyway, thanks for posting what you did because "POOF", you're gone. A very easy decision to make with IGNORE.

You okay? I didn't know proposing fair matches to test cte would make you go ballistic.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I am very much a believer that the only things you can control are Grip, Stance, Posture, Alignment.....Everything that happens in the stroke is a "result" of those 4 things...you actually have very little control over the stroke...It just happens naturally based on the 4 parts of the set up.

I wanted to comment on this post days ago but got sidetracked and forgot about it. My brother is the golfer of the family and has done some instructing with me. Grip, Stance, Posture, Alignment are the exact words he always says from day 1 and as long as one wants to continue golfing. He's played at a scratch level and shot in the 60's so he knows what he's talking about.
Me, I'm pretty much history for golf because of some disc problems that will require surgery.

Everything boils down to those four words and problems can always be traced back to one of the four. He used one other word but it came down more so with putting. AIMING. It could still fall under "alignment", but he talked about aiming the putter face and golf ball, not necessarily at the hole, but at an area above or below the hole to account for the break in the putt from slanted ground or the way the grain of the grass was growing or slanted from the sun.

So many similarities between golf and pool. This was a powerful post you made in its entirety but more so for those who have some link to the game of golf and the way it's taught.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

What's really even more hilarious than your goofball post, is how the Aiming Forum on this website has morphed into the
NON-AIMING forum!

Meanwhile, in the Aiming Forum...

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Meanwhile, in the Aiming Forum...

View attachment 745391

pj
chgo

IT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY THE PJ & CO. "FEEL TEAM" INFESTATION THAT WILL REMAIN UNTIL DEATH DO THEE PART