A reality check on aiming systems of all kinds

[Low500]

Thank you for your applause and your misplaced consideration. Are you a betting man? If so then we can do this experiment where there is ZERO CHANCE that the GB is misplaced and bet EXTREMELY high on the outcome.

The reason that a person FAILS TO IMAGINE the ghost ball is because ATTEMPTING TO imagine it is not easy when the OUTCOME of that imagination exercise should be a PRECISE line.

I have an extra 10k to throw at this IF you want to see if the results are closer to my thoughts on the subject or closer to yours. This is OPEN to everyone else as well.

I am a broke. I am a nit. I am a locksmith. I am a low stakes bettor. I choke for the cheese. My nerves are shot. I am a bargain hunter. I have no pride. I'm scared of everybody. I dress like 1989. I own a cheap pool stick. I ride public transit. I think Efren Reyes would've robbed Mosconi and busted him right down to his last pizza.. (everything the "big shots" in a poolroom or in this forum hate)
However if this contest ever takes place, I'd like to have $40 worth of the action bet on the Barton side. (that's what I've won betting 2 bucks a game since this morning)...……………………...using CTE, without goofy invisible "ghost balls".
I have $40 more dollars than I had when I woke up today. How much more do the "naysayers" around here with their "ghost balls" have?
Deal the cards..

 

[JB Cases]

I love it when someone argues the ghost ball fails you but then uses a ghost ball template as an aid to his "objective" system .
There is no proof any objective system is better than the ghost ball .
Ghost ball is not aiming at a dot on the felt .
As mentioned by someone already, vicinity or area where the gb has to be would suffice for most .
You can yap about any system you are using but in the end, you have to visualize the two balls colliding.
And when you do that, you are actually aiming the ghost ball .

I guess it was too much to hope for that you were gone.

Son, I will bet as much as you want to bet that I don't need any template.

If I ever used a template in a video then it was for illustrative purposes not for illusory purposes.

Because you contribute nothing to this sport at all you wouldn't very well understand either.

 

[JB Cases]

I love it when someone argues the ghost ball fails you but then uses a ghost ball template as an aid to his "objective" system .
There is no proof any objective system is better than the ghost ball .
Ghost ball is not aiming at a dot on the felt .
As mentioned by someone already, vicinity or area where the gb has to be would suffice for most .
You can yap about any system you are using but in the end, you have to visualize the two balls colliding.
And when you do that, you are actually aiming the ghost ball .

Yes there is proof. And if you bet enough I will provide the level of proof that will be incontrovertible and propel objective aiming to even greater awareness. You know what, don't need your bet, going to do it for free and maybe give you credit for the inspiration.

 

[Straightpool_99]

If ghostball sucks so badly, why is it so popular? It's easy to explain. It tells the beginner and advanced player alike where the cueball is going (tangent line). No it isn't "easy" to use. You need training, just like any applied skill, like surgery, woodworking or whatever else. It's not a skill that can be generalized to other situations, either. Just because you can imagine a somewhat accurate ghostball, it doesn't mean you can accurately put a dot on a piece of paper. It's a specialized skill and dependent on a certain talent. Some people just aren't very visual. I wouldn't call myself very visual, and I don't have all that great of a spatial awareness, but I get by with ghost ball anyway. Some probably struggle more than I do, others less.

People are talking about other aiming methods like they're totally "objective" and I'm not talking only CTE, either. Unfortunately ALL aiming systems require some training, trial and error and talent for spacial relationships. You need to be aware of where the balls edges are (unless you're Duckie). You need to accurately pick out the quarter marks on the object ball which is not at all easy to do without training, imagining sections of a ball isn't so much different than imagining a ghost ball. Visualizing a clear "dot" on a ball without markings and keeping it in focus while getting ready to shoot, without losing sight of it or "forgetting" where it is isn't easy either. Many people can't even find the center of the cueball right. Then, with most aiming systems you have to translate where a "big" ball (the cueball) hits the object ball which appears smaller, keeping in mind that the part you can't see is the one actually striking the object ball. It's kind of like backing up a car. You get a certain feeling for where the cars outer boundaries are after a while, much like the cueballs parts, but it's usually tricky to just get in a completely strange car and park it with inch precision without sensors and cameras. For contact point aimers and fractional ball cutters, the parts that you are actually "aligning" to the impact point are not on your actual cue line, but paralell to it. You see how this is similar to the car. So, no, I don't buy the premises of either CTE, fractional or contact point people about their so called "objectivity" and "guess free" operation. And I've used them all. Don't even get me started on spin.

I'm more than happy to discuss any aiming system with anyone, but lets all stop the pretense that there is a system that can be used "out of the box" by anybody and be 100% effective. There isn't and there never will be. Different systems have different strenghts and weaknesses and work for different people. They all take work, and I don't think any of them takes much less work than any other.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't buy the premises of either CTE, fractional or contact point people about their so called "objectivity" and "guess free" operation.

I've never heard "fractional or contact point people" claim those things.

pj <- don't get out enough
chgo

 

[The_JV]

Thank you for your applause and your misplaced consideration. Are you a betting man? If so then we can do this experiment where there is ZERO CHANCE that the GB is misplaced and bet EXTREMELY high on the outcome.

The reason that a person FAILS TO IMAGINE the ghost ball is because ATTEMPTING TO imagine it is not easy when the OUTCOME of that imagination exercise should be a PRECISE line.

I have an extra 10k to throw at this IF you want to see if the results are closer to my thoughts on the subject or closer to yours. This is OPEN to everyone else as well.

It's also been my experience that when people throw large sums "betting" money at someone who disagrees with them, it tends to display their insecurity.

I'll try this again... I don't use the ghost ball system. I just think you're preception of how it's used is off, and the experiment you did was flawed.

I did find it interesting that once you did your CTE dance in one of your vids, you then adjusted to the ghost ball path. Which of course is the line you need to take to strike the OB correctly, regradless of what system you opt to use. Seems like your issue isn't with the ghost ball, but you simply can't manage to find the shot line without an additional step or two to reach the same conclusion.

Why is it that someone who doesn't require the CTE method to reach the same conclusion is aiming "wrong"...?

 

[JB Cases]

It's also been my experience that when people throw large sums "betting" money at someone who disagrees with them, it tends to display their insecurity.

I'll try this again... I don't use the ghost ball system. I just think you're preception of how it's used is off, and the experiment you did was flawed.

I did find it interesting that once you did your CTE dance in one of your vids, you then adjusted to the ghost ball path. Which of course is the line you need to take to strike the OB correctly, regradless of what system you opt to use. Seems like your issue isn't with the ghost ball, but you simply can't manage to find the shot line without an additional step or two to reach the same conclusion.

Why is it that someone who doesn't require the CTE method to reach the same conclusion is aiming "wrong"...?

No one ever said that anyone who finds the shot line is aiming wrong. There is not a single video I have ever made where I have used a ghostball template and used an aiming system to get to the shot line where I have lied about the use of the aiming system.

I said what I would be willing to bet. If you think it's insecurity then call my bluff. Here is a secret, l don't write for you. As in my opinions and experiments are not given or done for your approval. They are done for my satisfaction and if others get something out of it then great.

 

[The_JV]

No one ever said that anyone who finds the shot line is aiming wrong. There is not a single video I have ever made where I have used a ghostball template and used an aiming system to get to the shot line where I have lied about the use of the aiming system.

I said what I would be willing to bet. If you think it's insecurity then call my bluff. Here is a secret, l don't write for you. As in my opinions and experiments are given or done for your approval. They are done for my satisfaction and if others get something out of it then great.

I never meant to insinuate that you were lying. I hope you're not under that impression.

I'm always up a for match, so maybe someday we can bet it up some. However my pockets are nowhere near as deep as yours apparently...lol.

As far as you needing my approval... Well, I simply said that I thought your methods were flawed, and may gain some benefit from viewing the video Neils produced. We're still droaning on because you seem to need some level of validation. We could have save a page worth of responses if you simply disagreed and left it at that.

 

[BC21]

If ghostball sucks so badly, why is it so popular? It's easy to explain. It tells the beginner and advanced player alike where the cueball is going (tangent line). No it isn't "easy" to use. You need training, just like any applied skill, like surgery, woodworking or whatever else. It's not a skill that can be generalized to other situations, either. Just because you can imagine a somewhat accurate ghostball, it doesn't mean you can accurately put a dot on a piece of paper. It's a specialized skill and dependent on a certain talent. Some people just aren't very visual. I wouldn't call myself very visual, and I don't have all that great of a spatial awareness, but I get by with ghost ball anyway. Some probably struggle more than I do, others less.

People are talking about other aiming methods like they're totally "objective" and I'm not talking only CTE, either. Unfortunately ALL aiming systems require some training, trial and error and talent for spacial relationships. You need to be aware of where the balls edges are (unless you're Duckie). You need to accurately pick out the quarter marks on the object ball which is not at all easy to do without training, imagining sections of a ball isn't so much different than imagining a ghost ball. Visualizing a clear "dot" on a ball without markings and keeping it in focus while getting ready to shoot, without losing sight of it or "forgetting" where it is isn't easy either. Many people can't even find the center of the cueball right. Then, with most aiming systems you have to translate where a "big" ball (the cueball) hits the object ball which appears smaller, keeping in mind that the part you can't see is the one actually striking the object ball. It's kind of like backing up a car. You get a certain feeling for where the cars outer boundaries are after a while, much like the cueballs parts, but it's usually tricky to just get in a completely strange car and park it with inch precision without sensors and cameras. For contact point aimers and fractional ball cutters, the parts that you are actually "aligning" to the impact point are not on your actual cue line, but paralell to it. You see how this is similar to the car. So, no, I don't buy the premises of either CTE, fractional or contact point people about their so called "objectivity" and "guess free" operation. And I've used them all. Don't even get me started on spin.

I'm more than happy to discuss any aiming system with anyone, but lets all stop the pretense that there is a system that can be used "out of the box" by anybody and be 100% effective. There isn't and there never will be. Different systems have different strenghts and weaknesses and work for different people. They all take work, and I don't think any of them takes much less work than any other.

With Poolology, the only objective factor is the process of determining the aim line.
The player doesn't have to guess the aim line. But you are 100% correct that the player still has to develop the spatial skills needed to accurately visualize that line, as well as the skills needed to send the cb down that line.

 

[JB Cases]

I never meant to insinuate that you were lying. I hope you're not under that impression.

I'm always up a for match, so maybe someday we can bet it up some. However my pockets are nowhere near as deep as yours apparently...lol.

As far as you needing my approval... Well, I simply said that I thought your methods were flawed, and may gain some benefit from viewing the video Neils produced. We're still droaning on because you seem to need some level of validation. We could have save a page worth of responses if you simply disagreed and left it at that.

The number of responses have no bearing. I understand what you said and I gave my reasoning and simply said I would put my money where my mouth is.

The video Niels made has been presented here and dissected already.

You seem to have come into the conversation without any background on the depth of this discussion. Nothing wrong with wanting validation of my points and laying out how they might be validated. You choose to personally attack me as if I wasn't well versed in the application of the ghost ball method. Then you chose to continue the personal attack with your comment that I just don't want to listen. I guess you think that's just something another person should agree to disagree over.

Well, I agree to disagree with you on the premise that I should leave your assertions unanswered. I suggest that you don't engage with me ever if you think that anything you say to me should go unanswered or left alone as if our respective positions are equal. Offering to "bet" isn't to scare you or bully you, it is an indication of how confident I am in my position. Look at it more like a figure of speech with a real offer behind it.

I don't have the slightest animosity towards you, don't know you and only care about the topic. If you take offense and think you're going to "get me" with veiled accusations then that's the wrong path.

 

[JB Cases]

If ghostball sucks so badly, why is it so popular? It's easy to explain. It tells the beginner and advanced player alike where the cueball is going (tangent line). No it isn't "easy" to use. You need training, just like any applied skill, like surgery, woodworking or whatever else. It's not a skill that can be generalized to other situations, either. Just because you can imagine a somewhat accurate ghostball, it doesn't mean you can accurately put a dot on a piece of paper. It's a specialized skill and dependent on a certain talent. Some people just aren't very visual. I wouldn't call myself very visual, and I don't have all that great of a spatial awareness, but I get by with ghost ball anyway. Some probably struggle more than I do, others less.

People are talking about other aiming methods like they're totally "objective" and I'm not talking only CTE, either. Unfortunately ALL aiming systems require some training, trial and error and talent for spacial relationships. You need to be aware of where the balls edges are (unless you're Duckie). You need to accurately pick out the quarter marks on the object ball which is not at all easy to do without training, imagining sections of a ball isn't so much different than imagining a ghost ball. Visualizing a clear "dot" on a ball without markings and keeping it in focus while getting ready to shoot, without losing sight of it or "forgetting" where it is isn't easy either. Many people can't even find the center of the cueball right. Then, with most aiming systems you have to translate where a "big" ball (the cueball) hits the object ball which appears smaller, keeping in mind that the part you can't see is the one actually striking the object ball. It's kind of like backing up a car. You get a certain feeling for where the cars outer boundaries are after a while, much like the cueballs parts, but it's usually tricky to just get in a completely strange car and park it with inch precision without sensors and cameras. For contact point aimers and fractional ball cutters, the parts that you are actually "aligning" to the impact point are not on your actual cue line, but paralell to it. You see how this is similar to the car. So, no, I don't buy the premises of either CTE, fractional or contact point people about their so called "objectivity" and "guess free" operation. And I've used them all. Don't even get me started on spin.

I'm more than happy to discuss any aiming system with anyone, but lets all stop the pretense that there is a system that can be used "out of the box" by anybody and be 100% effective. There isn't and there never will be. Different systems have different strenghts and weaknesses and work for different people. They all take work, and I don't think any of them takes much less work than any other.

Because it is the easiest to show and diagram. The low hanging fruit of aiming instruction.

Objective aiming exists and is incredibly effective. Cte, to me is the most objective of them all. To the point that whatever feel might be there is so small that no knocker has ever been able to identify where it is.

But you will never be convinced of that until you truly learn it.

 

[JB Cases]

If ghostball sucks so badly, why is it so popular? It's easy to explain. It tells the beginner and advanced player alike where the cueball is going (tangent line). No it isn't "easy" to use. You need training, just like any applied skill, like surgery, woodworking or whatever else. It's not a skill that can be generalized to other situations, either. Just because you can imagine a somewhat accurate ghostball, it doesn't mean you can accurately put a dot on a piece of paper. It's a specialized skill and dependent on a certain talent. Some people just aren't very visual. I wouldn't call myself very visual, and I don't have all that great of a spatial awareness, but I get by with ghost ball anyway. Some probably struggle more than I do, others less.

People are talking about other aiming methods like they're totally "objective" and I'm not talking only CTE, either. Unfortunately ALL aiming systems require some training, trial and error and talent for spacial relationships. You need to be aware of where the balls edges are (unless you're Duckie). You need to accurately pick out the quarter marks on the object ball which is not at all easy to do without training, imagining sections of a ball isn't so much different than imagining a ghost ball. Visualizing a clear "dot" on a ball without markings and keeping it in focus while getting ready to shoot, without losing sight of it or "forgetting" where it is isn't easy either. Many people can't even find the center of the cueball right. Then, with most aiming systems you have to translate where a "big" ball (the cueball) hits the object ball which appears smaller, keeping in mind that the part you can't see is the one actually striking the object ball. It's kind of like backing up a car. You get a certain feeling for where the cars outer boundaries are after a while, much like the cueballs parts, but it's usually tricky to just get in a completely strange car and park it with inch precision without sensors and cameras. For contact point aimers and fractional ball cutters, the parts that you are actually "aligning" to the impact point are not on your actual cue line, but paralell to it. You see how this is similar to the car. So, no, I don't buy the premises of either CTE, fractional or contact point people about their so called "objectivity" and "guess free" operation. And I've used them all. Don't even get me started on spin.

I'm more than happy to discuss any aiming system with anyone, but lets all stop the pretense that there is a system that can be used "out of the box" by anybody and be 100% effective. There isn't and there never will be. Different systems have different strenghts and weaknesses and work for different people. They all take work, and I don't think any of them takes much less work than any other.

All else being equal objective aiming system use will produce a good player faster than ghost ball in my opinion.

I believe this with every fiber of my being and I would set up a big brother style situation where the competitors are monitored 24/7 and bet a million dollars on it if I had it.

 

[JB Cases]

I never meant to insinuate that you were lying. I hope you're not under that impression.

I'm always up a for match, so maybe someday we can bet it up some. However my pockets are nowhere near as deep as yours apparently...lol.

As far as you needing my approval... Well, I simply said that I thought your methods were flawed, and may gain some benefit from viewing the video Neils produced. We're still droaning on because you seem to need some level of validation. We could have save a page worth of responses if you simply disagreed and left it at that.

Also it should be noted that at no time did I challenge you to play.

 

[straightline]

With Poolology, the only objective factor is the process of determining the aim line.
The player doesn't have to guess the aim line. But you are 100% correct that the player still has to develop the spatial skills needed to accurately visualize that line, as well as the skills needed to send the cb down that line.

So it is with contact geometry. The difference being the drafting lines of CG (lol) lay out one specific alignment and fractional alignment is always subject to more fractions. Hopefully one learns to shoot at the object ball and not only the independent cueball vector. Same thing with ghost ball. JB posted a video where he tries to visually mark goes ball positions concentric to a pool ball. He of course was off, nominally by a quarter inch. If one is consistently off by a quarter inch shooting goez ball the knee jerk reaction would be to calibrate this into a usable spec - and once again be shooting at an actual ball and not just the imaginary line.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... whatever feel might be there is so small that no knocker has ever been able to identify where it is.

lol

Describe a “perception”.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

lol

Describe a “perception”.

pj
chgo

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Somehow you have this idea that all perception is just full guessing. Sorry to inform you that it is not.

 

[JB Cases]

So it is with contact geometry. The difference being the drafting lines of CG (lol) lay out one specific alignment and fractional alignment is always subject to more fractions. Hopefully one learns to shoot at the object ball and not only the independent cueball vector. Same thing with ghost ball. JB posted a video where he tries to visually mark goes ball positions concentric to a pool ball. He of course was off, nominally by a quarter inch. If one is consistently off by a quarter inch shooting goez ball the knee jerk reaction would be to calibrate this into a usable spec - and once again be shooting at an actual ball and not just the imaginary line.

The video did not show a constant quarter inch error. Keep up.

 

[straightline]

The video did not show a constant quarter inch error. Keep up.

When you were measuring the dots which incidentally were nearly invisible, you came up something close to a quarter give or take in every instance on the first hemisphere. Point is you should eventually learn to look at and judge the hit the sooner the better.

 

[The_JV]

You seem to have come into the conversation without any background on the depth of this discussion. Nothing wrong with wanting validation of my points and laying out how they might be validated. You choose to personally attack me as if I wasn't well versed in the application of the ghost ball method. Then you chose to continue the personal attack with your comment that I just don't want to listen. I guess you think that's just something another person should agree to disagree over.

Well I came into this thread at the beginning, so if you have some underlying angst from prior conversations regarding the application of the ghost ball then then please don't judge my activity in this thread against it. I have never personally attacked you. I attempted to have a breif conversation that I thought may provide you a differing perspective on the application of the ghost ball method. You stated that I was wrong, and one of the strongest players in the world is wrong (Neils), and I'm going to assume by extension everyone that has successfully utilized the GB method is wrong. Which is fine by me, even though I don't agree.

I don't have the slightest animosity towards you, don't know you and only care about the topic. If you take offense and think you're going to "get me" with veiled accusations then that's the wrong path.

I'll take you word for it, but you certainly have a healthy distain for the opposing side of the conversation...lol. I'm not trying to get you at all, and if you want to take it to such an extreme, then i guess you could say the only thing I've accused you of is the incorrect application of the ghost ball. Oh... and oh possibly the inability to replicate the size of an object (GB) in your mind while looking directly at two examples (CB & OB).

You're definitely passionate about disproving the ghost ball. I don't know a more fitting word for it. You've put more effort into validating your thoughts with these posts and videos then most put into their game at all. I know you've said you don't need the validation from others, (well at least from me), but if that's the case then I've never witnessed anyone put forth such selfless efforts to validate their argument.

 

[The_JV]

Also it should be noted that at no time did I challenge you to play.

Apologies... When I thought about your willingness to wager it went straight to some kind of match play. I don't have a large enough dog in this aiming 'fight' to care to wager anything. How about a coffee...? Not sure how it could be any real 'contest of aiming' without being at the same table. Not even sure how that contest would be constructed.

Now that I think of it. Just the seeing how the concept would play out might be interesting enough to keep me engaged.