Aiming With Shadows

[Mikjary]

I recently came across an old thread by Grey Ghost, on shadow aiming. He mentioned an update, but I must have missed it.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=201526
I can use it on my table with two 8 foot fluorescent bulbs. There aren't many shadows, but once you dial in on what part of them to hit according to distance and cut angle, it's fairly accurate.

I suppose with each table being set up differently as far as light positioning, with a few adjustments a player could use this technique to pocket balls. Especially on those nights where automatic never happens. :grin-square:

Best,
Mike

 

[Neil]

There is a complete system on it called the SEE System. http://www.scribd.com/doc/76044546/The-See-system-Preview

 

[Mikjary]

There is a complete system on it called the SEE System. http://www.scribd.com/doc/76044546/The-See-system-Preview

Thanks. I have the download from Ekkes. I was wondering if Grey Ghost has any more info with his system? I haven't heard much from him lately.

Best,
Mike

 

[bbb]

There is a complete system on it called the SEE System. http://www.scribd.com/doc/76044546/The-See-system-Preview

my cursory understanding of the see system is the shadows are at the BOTTOM of the ball not where the shadow leaves the ball from greyghost
....
all you have to do is look for where the innermost shadow (darkest one) is exiting the ball....if your cutting to the right then your looking to where the shadow comes out the ball on the left....


....
also he doesnt mention changing how you use the shadows based on the cut angle
like in the SEE system

 

[ENGLISH!]

Hi Mike,

Like Keebe, I discovered 'a' shadow system a long time ago. I think what I stumbled upon is more like Keebe's than the SEE system because I was shorter then & I had an even lower head position when I was not yet fully grown. Keebe's right about how difficult it is to put these types of things into text with no visual aids.

My take on it is like this. In 'my' method you can't really properly 'see' the 'spot' until your head/eye gets down on the shot. You can pick the approximate correct line from the CB to the OB when standing but not exactly until you get low enough. Then when you get low enough you 'see the light' coming from the other side & it contrasts with the shadow on the 'under' side of the ball.

In Keebe's thread, Pat Johnson argued against what Keebe was saying & that it was not or could not be a 'system' because perceptions of the shadow 'spot' changed from different angle viewpoints from around the table & Keebe responded that there were modifications for different angles. I think that goes for different angles along the vertical axis as well. I would not know what they might be for the vertical axis as 'creating' the horizontal angles are not dependent on any vertical alignment. The balls sit on the horizontal plane of the table bed. I think our head being above the equator of the ball is a hindrance to actually 'seeing' the needed line between the CB & OB to get the proper 'exit' line of the OB after the collision.

Well there are different amounts of collision throw for different angles too. Hence any 'system' that works would have to have a means or method to account for that.

PJ was a stickler for properly defined terms & the use of words & he often used his 'supreme knowledge' of such to twist meanings in HIS favor of any discussion that often turned into an 'argument'. He 'argued' that since Keebe's method required 'modifications' it was not a 'system'. Okay then it's a 'method'. PJ would often argue the language & use nomenclature & 'forget' about whether or not the subject matter was correct or not. IMHO, All that really mattered to PJ was to win the discussion or 'argument'. Others do the same thing. When they do that they become disingenuous & anything else that they put forth should be discarded as argumentative for the sake of merely arguing just to 'win' the discussion whether their point is correct or not. Their goal is to overwhelm their 'opponent', at least that is my opinion. They do so to either 'win' the argument or to at least make the opposing side back down & quit. My opinion of PJ, based only of my viewing of him here on AZB may be incorrect but there are certainly people here on AZB that do fit what I have described above.

As to 'a' shadow 'system' or 'method', whether it's Keebe's, mine, or the first man that ever played the game, I'd say it does work, & it works for all the shots when the slight modifications are applied. Just like CTE has it's set perceptions with a pivot to either side to arrive at a different shot. 'A' shadow 'system' or 'method' has it's different 'alignment' or 'aim' lines to arrive at different shots. While using the edge or contact point of the CB as the alignment/aim method to the 'shadow spot' might yield a cut into a corner, using center cue to the 'shadow spot' on the ball might yield a bank. To me there is a similarity between the two, CTE & 'a' shadow 'system or 'method'.

What happens on the table happens. It IS real. It is only our lack of understanding it or explaining it that is lacking. Like CJ says, 'The Game Is The Teacher'.

I think PJ & others often, if not always 'forget', that while we humans can be very talented we are not perfect & it is WE that can misuse or misapply a 'system' or a 'method' from time to time. By that I mean use the wrong modification for the situation & that does not even take into account an 'occasional' stroke flaw. Not that that ever came into consideration for PJ, as I doubt that he ever really considered the human aspect either for the good nor the bad. The thing is 'we' do not play pool in a computer simulator that was programmed by humans that have faults & flaws & hence the programming can have faults & flaws.

Naturally, all of the above are just my takes & my opinions. There is no need to nit pick them apart or try to tear them apart because that won't change my take or opinions. Mike this is not for you, but for others. I think you will understand. My opinion of PJ from my experience of him only here on AZB might be incorrect, but I am fairly sure that my take & opinion of 'a' type of shadow 'system' or 'method' of which Keebe was speaking is correct. IMHO the 'system' or 'method' works for all shots when the few & simple 'modifications' are applied PROPERLY AND & perhaps ONLY when it is employed with a head & eye position low enough to 'see the light' from the 'other' side. The balls roll on the table's playing surface & IMHO the best perspective to 'see' things is at or as near to the equator of the balls as we can get. That way we do not apply so much of our 'flawed' perception, from the 'wrong' vertical angle, of 'seeing' things.

Best to you, Mike,
Rick

 

[Mikjary]

Rick,

Thanks for the response. I think GG's thread could've had a lot more mileage if it was debated more than argued. Even if you're right, a different viewpoint may open a previously unexplored avenue and increase the knowledge base. Kind of like, "two heads are better than one", line of thinking.

The lights on my table don't show the typical shadows as they are 8 foot fluorescents. I don't really have a back of the ball shadow, but get a well defined "triangle" at the base of the ball.


The large shadow has a tendency to be towards the center of the table instead of behind the object ball.

There was a player that supposedly hung out with Greenleaf named Fez, that mentioned a "shadow system". Spidey may be able to chime in about that because I'm not sure about the details.

For sure, there are adjustments. I've developed my own because I'm looking at a different type of shadow than on GG's diagram. If I wanted to pursue the system, I suppose I could learn adjustments for all types of lighting. I even tried a light off to the side and found very little difference in the system, so the point about an offset light didn't sway me.

It comes down to this. If you want to make something work, it will. I got the same static from posters about the ferrule/stick aiming system. It works for all shots, but was panned by purists. SVB doesn't know what the hell he's talking about! :grin-square: I posted a banking system on here and got little response. A couple of months later I saw it on a DVD from somebody else. :thumbup:

The SEE system effectively uses shadows and adjustments to get you on the shot line. Darren Appleton uses it. CTE/Pro One works and is used by top pros. They're just not point and shoot systems like ghostball. They become that way after practicing with them, but how do you diagram what your visual perception is telling you as you blend the images in your mind? Tough call and an easy target for ridicule by the closed minded.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

my cursory understanding of the see system is the shadows are at the BOTTOM of the ball not where the shadow leaves the ball from greyghost
....
all you have to do is look for where the innermost shadow (darkest one) is exiting the ball....if your cutting to the right then your looking to where the shadow comes out the ball on the left....

View attachment 362078
....
also he doesnt mention changing how you use the shadows based on the cut angle
like in the SEE system

Yeah, it's a different application. You're still getting information from the table. Whether we admit to it or not, our minds use this type of information to judge distance and formulate angle calculations.

We determine distance by the size and shading of objects such as shadows and lighting effects on and around the balls. Ekkes does a good job of using these physical references to get his shot line.

Best,
Mike

 

[ENGLISH!]

Mike,

Like many if not most all of us, I have played on many a tables with different lighting. I've not played on one where I felt that the shadow method was not working. While I understand that there are slight differences, the light is coming from overhead & usually from rather near the center line of the table. I'm sure PJ would argue that any variance in the light source would throw the 'system' off, but we have to remember that the pockets are bigger than the balls & there is a margin for error. When there are multiple shadows it does take our experience with knowing the approximate correct line to enable us to choose the correct 'shadow spot'. I'm fairly sure a newbie to the game would probably have some difficulty in those situations. So...perhaps the 'system/method' is not 'foolproof' (no offense intended to newbie's) but it can certainly work well for anyone with enough experience. Like someone said, I believe it was Keebe, it is a definitive visual unlike trying to see a point on the equator of the cue ball.

I forgot to mention earlier that I like to shoot most all cuts with outside english when using a 'shadow spot'. I'm not sure if that helps the 'system'/'method' or not but it works fine for me. Naturally I make a 'modification if I use inside english. It's sort of like shooting to the inside or outside of 'the spot'.

I also use the 'shadow spot' with TOI as an intermediate point between center & edge targeting depending on the angle & distance between the balls. That's sort of like having an A,B & C from center to edge in both directions with 'A' being the center, B being the the 'shadow spot & C being the edge.'

I could be wrong but I don't think any upper level player uses one & only one method for every shot. I guess there could be those that are using CTE that now use it for every shot, but I don't think too many others use one method for every type shot. IMO, Playing pool is like art with the artist using his or her own combination of techniques to create their own masterpiece. It's not like paint by numbers. At least not yet. It may be getting closer to that with the advent of CTE & the reveal of TOI to the general public.

Sorry that I am so long winded & sometimes seem to ramble with no specific purpose.

Best,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Mike,

On that 2nd. 4 ball pic, I know the camera line is off to the side but when you are on the CB line, if you draw or picture a line up from where the shadow line & 'light' beyond meet near the bottom of the ball & shoot with an equal & opposite overlap. Isn't that the line?

Best,
Rick

 

[Mikjary]

It is the line, but the shadow is towards the shooter, not behind the 4 ball like GG's diagram. IOW, there is no shadow extended, so I can actually hit the center of the cue ball to this triangle to pocket the ball. No adjustment is necessary with contact points.

The actual contact point for my head level/position is where the arrow is. It changes to the edge of the cue ball instead of the center depending on cut angle and distance.

Best,
Mike

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

The SEE system effectively uses shadows and adjustments to get you on the shot line. Darren Appleton uses it.

Darren mentioned using the SEE system during TAR podcast #32. His comments begin around the 5 minute mark:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4y196iqUUs&feature=youtu.be


As he said, he only uses it on certain shots, like rail shots. Maybe these are the only shots he is confident that it works on?

Anyway, he claims that "the top players really go off feel and vision", so I doubt he is a SEE "user" in the strictest sense of things.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Mike,

The full shadow on the table surface will lengthen out & go more oblong running away from the light source toward the rail as a ball is positioned more & more from the center of the light source & depending from what viewing angle it is being seen relative to that light source. Look at the shadow on the table of the 9 ball compared to the 6 ball. Now walk around & look at it from over the cue ball & then as seen directly into the pocket. I doubt that it will be the same when seen from each different perspective.

Kebbe said that his drawing was just representative & not to scale. Take what he is calling the shadow exit on the pocket side. I think that is what I refer to as the light on the other side coming through from that side as seen from the low head position. That contrasts with & sort of defines the shadow spot, at least to me it does.

I would not let Keebe's drawing influence you much at all as it was his first attempt & was actually asking for help to try to explain it.

Best,
Rick

 

[Mikjary]

Darren mentioned using the SEE system during TAR podcast #32. His comments begin around the 5 minute mark:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4y196iqUUs&feature=youtu.be


As he said, he only uses it on certain shots, like rail shots. Maybe these are the only shots he is confident that it works on?

Anyway, he claims that "the top players really go off feel and vision", so I doubt he is a SEE "user" in the strictest sense of things.

I only use systems on certain shots, too. Most shots I feel confident enough to just swing away. I would have to think the top players only use systems, if at all, on certain shots they may not be consistent with pocketing.

Darren obviously clicks on rail shots with the See system. Who can argue with his results? :smile:

Best,
Mike

 

[bbb]

Yeah, it's a different application. You're still getting information from the table. Whether we admit to it or not, our minds use this type of information to judge distance and formulate angle calculations.

We determine distance by the size and shading of objects such as shadows and lighting effects on and around the balls. Ekkes does a good job of using these physical references to get his shot line.

Best,
Mike

thanks for the response

 

[westlife]

is darren appleton used pure SEE system or just endorsing it....or he has other aiming system than see system,.

 

[Mikjary]

is darren appleton used pure SEE system or just endorsing it....or he has other aiming system than see system,.

I know he's mentioned he uses it on some shots, so I guess that's an endorsement. Yes and yes. :smile: I bought his dvd, but he never mentioned another system.

Best,
Mike

 

[CJ Wiley]

REAP your reward?

Did "Fez" live in Albuquerque or El Paso Tx? You are on the right track (with the Shadow Aiming) by the way, they serve as a "REAP" (Relative Essential Aiming Point).

All our subconscious needs is a relative point to calculate any angle, and without this info. it's a pure "guessing game". . . . . the INNER game is our teacher.

Rick,

Thanks for the response. I think GG's thread could've had a lot more mileage if it was debated more than argued. Even if you're right, a different viewpoint may open a previously unexplored avenue and increase the knowledge base. Kind of like, "two heads are better than one", line of thinking.

The lights on my table don't show the typical shadows as they are 8 foot fluorescents. I don't really have a back of the ball shadow, but get a well defined "triangle" at the base of the ball. View attachment 362134

View attachment 362139
The large shadow has a tendency to be towards the center of the table instead of behind the object ball.

There was a player that supposedly hung out with Greenleaf named Fez, that mentioned a "shadow system". Spidey may be able to chime in about that because I'm not sure about the details.

For sure, there are adjustments. I've developed my own because I'm looking at a different type of shadow than on GG's diagram. If I wanted to pursue the system, I suppose I could learn adjustments for all types of lighting. I even tried a light off to the side and found very little difference in the system, so the point about an offset light didn't sway me.

It comes down to this. If you want to make something work, it will. I got the same static from posters about the ferrule/stick aiming system. It works for all shots, but was panned by purists. SVB doesn't know what the hell he's talking about! :grin-square: I posted a banking system on here and got little response. A couple of months later I saw it on a DVD from somebody else. :thumbup:

The SEE system effectively uses shadows and adjustments to get you on the shot line. Darren Appleton uses it. CTE/Pro One works and is used by top pros. They're just not point and shoot systems like ghostball. They become that way after practicing with them, but how do you diagram what your visual perception is telling you as you blend the images in your mind? Tough call and an easy target for ridicule by the closed minded.

Best,
Mike

 

[scottjen26]

Rick,

...The SEE system effectively uses shadows and adjustments to get you on the shot line. Darren Appleton uses it. CTE/Pro One works and is used by top pros. They're just not point and shoot systems like ghostball. They become that way after practicing with them, but how do you diagram what your visual perception is telling you as you blend the images in your mind? Tough call and an easy target for ridicule by the closed minded.

Best,
Mike

Great finishing paragraph, very well said...


And yes, Darren played with the SEE system for some period of time, then went back to his more traditional approach yet still uses components of the SEE system to validate or fine tune his setup on rail shots specifically. It is very strong for that, hard to explain, but my confidence on those is very high as well. Odd, just something visually, the same 40 degree cut in the middle of the table works the same way yet confidence visually is so high when it's close to the rail. Probably what he found as well.

I feel at the level those guys play at, they are probably better off using a more subconscious approach to aiming, speed control, etc. the majority of the time. Once used for a while, the conscious system alignments and movements start to become more subconscious as well, just takes some table time and a lot of awareness to reach that point.
Scott

 

[Mikjary]

Did "Fez" live in Albuquerque or El Paso Tx? You are on the right track (with the Shadow Aiming) by the way, they serve as a "REAP" (Relative Essential Aiming Point).

All our subconscious needs is a relative point to calculate any angle, and without this info. it's a pure "guessing game". . . . . the INNER game is our teacher.

I'm pretty sure he was from the Albuquerque neck of the woods. He ran with Jimmy Moore, I think. There is a link for an interview with Jimmy and Rick Owens, his relative, just before he passed. I believe Fez, Jimmy, and Ralph Greenleaf, were partners. Hal Houle knew Greenleaf and probably Fez. This is just what I've heard. No personal contact.

Spidey started a thread when Fez passed a couple of years ago. I'll look for it later.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

Great finishing paragraph, very well said...
I feel at the level those guys play at, they are probably better off using a more subconscious approach to aiming, speed control, etc. the majority of the time. Once used for a while, the conscious system alignments and movements start to become more subconscious as well, just takes some table time and a lot of awareness to reach that point.
Scott

I agree. What starts out as a step by step process becomes second nature. Unless something changes and the results go bad, the trained subconscious will out play any other method.

Best,
Mike