Bridge Hand Role in Aiming

[BC21]

Shouldn't it be the cueball isn't as consistent as a bullet coming out of a rifle? The similarity would be the pool stroke can be good or bad the same as an incorrect trigger pull or correct one by the index finger. Both can cause their projectiles to go straight or be pushed/pulled. In the case of a firearm, it can also go high or low in addition to left or right. In pool it would be a high miscue or low jumped ball.

Herein lies a major difference that causes all of the problems on pool forums. With a rifle or a pistol, you have a front sight and a rear sight that need to be linked correctly to the TARGET. That's IT unless it's a fairly long distance and wind needs to be taken in account along with gravity.

In pool, there are between 75-100 ways to SIGHT a cueball to the OB to the pocket. They're called AIMING SYSTEMS. Some are definitely better than others. But one or two get VILIFIED as being totally erroneous and harmful to the game if used by about 8 individuals for over two decades.

The barrel of a rifle and top sight does have to be absolutely in line with the target. But a pool cue can in fact BE ANGLED while striking the CB as well as the head position. The rear sight (CB) and front sight (OB) can also be viewed from various perspectives that aren't necessarily straight on in a "conventional way."

This seems to be the major cause of dissent from those who know how to do this and those who don't and need and preach straight lines and angles as dogma. It isn't necessary because both work.

It's like a pitcher in baseball. There have been some great ones that threw mostly straight fastballs that were so fast and accurate they were hard to hit. And there have been others that come at the batter from all different sidearm angles and head positions to make the balls still go across the plate. Both work. Just like in pool.

The cb direction and the bullet direction are the results of alignment and shot execution. What causes poor or inconsistent results? Poor alignment, poor or inconsistent cue delivery or trigger pull, moving or losing focus on the target, etc...

As with aiming a rifle, when aiming to stroke a pool cue directly through ccb to a distant point or target, there is a front (tip end of the cue) and a rear (grip end of the cue) sight/alignment points. The front is visual while the rear is matter of proprioception.

Even with CTE, regardless of the fact that you aren't looking straight down the cue, you are using front and rear alignment points to align the cue. The position of the front point (tip/ferrule) is visual, while the rear (grip/butt) is feel/proprioception. If the cue is on the correct line it will send the cb where it's supposed to go, just like if a the barrel of a gun is on the correct line it will send the bullet where it's supposed to go.

 

[BC21]

We are actually. The most versatile machines in the world. The only real problem is the control module.

Lol.... We are biological machines, not mechanical machines, which means we are subject to intermittent performance levels, prone to make mistakes on occassion.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The cb direction and the bullet direction are the results of alignment and shot execution. What causes poor or inconsistent results? Poor alignment, poor or inconsistent cue delivery or trigger pull, moving or losing focus on the target, etc...

As with aiming a rifle, when aiming to stroke a pool cue directly through ccb to a distant point or target, there is a front (tip end of the cue) and a rear (grip end of the cue) sight/alignment points. The front is visual while the rear is matter of proprioception.

Even with CTE, regardless of the fact that you aren't looking straight down the cue, you are using front and rear alignment points to align the cue. The position of the front point (tip/ferrule) is visual, while the rear (grip/butt) is feel/proprioception. If the cue is on the correct line it will send the cb where it's supposed to go, just like if a the barrel of a gun is on the correct line it will send the bullet where it's supposed to go.

Attention for alignment is really between the CB and OB, not where the cue is or the cue. It's the Center and Edge of the CB to parts of OB. It can't be stressed enough but never seems to stick on those who don't use it, don't want to use it, or act is if they know everything there is to know without ever having learned to use it. And then the shit starts.

A very important part of Shiskabob though.

 

[claymont]

Unlike the precision crafted gun, the pool firing mechanism is 70% water.

In most cases, nowadays, guns need that "water" to get on target and fire. Just as pool does.

 

[straightline]

In most cases, nowadays, guns need that "water" to get on target and fire. Just as pool does.

Still it's all algorithmic from the squeeze on. The water bag still has lots of time and steps to dog it.

 

[BC21]

Attention for alignment is really between the CB and OB, not where the cue is or the cue. It's the Center and Edge of the CB to parts of OB. It can't be stressed enough but never seems to stick on those who don't use it, don't want to use it, or act is if they know everything there is to know without ever having learned to use it. And then the shit starts.

A very important part of Shiskabob though.

Right, but for every shot your cue must be aligned properly to send the cb to where it needs to be in order to pocket the ob. That involves looking at where your tip or shaft is in relation to where you want to strike the cb, and also involves feeling or knowing that your grip hand is in tune with that same alignment.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Right, but for every shot your cue must be aligned properly to send the cb to where it needs to be in order to pocket the ob. That involves looking at where your tip or shaft is in relation to where you want to strike the cb,

It's led to CCB

 

[BC21]

It's led to CCB

Exactly. The front sight is pointed/aligned to ccb, and if a player wants the cb to go where they intend it to go, the grip/butt end of the cue must also be aligned to ccb. It's an odd way to think of cue positioning, but, like a rifle, there is a front and a rear sight/alignment point. We just don't have the ability to see both points of alignment at once. We see the front and feel or trust that the back is in line.

Stand behind a beginner and tell them to line up on a straight in shot through center cb. You'll notice many times that the tip is indeed lined to ccb, but when looking down the cue the butt or grip hand is off line, which means if the player strokes along that line the cb will not strike the ob accurately.

With experience the player will eventually get a good feel for knowing when the entire cue (front to rear) is on line for the shot. Until then, playing pool is like shooting a rifle with only a front sight, no rear sight to ensure proper alignment/aim. But once you get a feel for exactly where your cue is pointed or aligned, you start pocketing balls more effectively.

 

[Dan White]

The barrel of a rifle and top sight does have to be absolutely in line with the target. But a pool cue can in fact BE ANGLED while striking the CB as well as the head position. The rear sight (CB) and front sight (OB) can also be viewed from various perspectives that aren't necessarily straight on in a "conventional way."

This seems to be the major cause of dissent [regarding CTE] from those who know how to do this and those who don't and need and preach straight lines and angles as dogma. It isn't necessary because both work.

I hope you don't really think this is what the CTE "haters" as we're called have a problem with. It has nothing to do with that. Here's the problem, from my perspective. I'm borrowing Poolology to make the point. Also, I'm not posting this to be argumentative. It's just a restatement of this issue for new people:

Stan says if you learn CTE all you need to do is learn the A,B,C perceptions and forget the pocket because the shape of the pool table means that those A,B,C perceptions will all send the ob to the corners of the table (that is, the pockets). It is not unheard of to say that a formula or prescribed set of steps can send the ob to the pocket without the player really needing to have the experience of "just seeing" when the shot goes. The example, of course, is Poolology. This method makes use of the geometry of the table and allows you to send the ball to the corners of the table just the way Stan says that CTE does. You need a straight stroke and a little math and Poolology works. BUT, the table does not reveal this mathematical relationship for free. With Poolology, you need to determine where the balls are on a table grid and then do some math. THEN and ONLY THEN can you make use of the hidden magic that sends the balls to the pockets with Poolology.

Stan's method is basically an attempt to achieve what Poolology does without doing the math. Stan claims that if you look at the balls a certain way, the relationship between the balls and the pocket will reveal itself automatically, showing you the shot line. It's like trying to multiply two large numbers. If you have a calculator (Poolology) then no problem. If not (CTE) then you think that if you stare at the numbers the right way the answer will jump out at you. 20 years and still no explanation at all as to how this is true.

This is the crux of the argument to me. I know some won't like the way I laid it out but it's the clearest way I know to explain it.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I hope you don't really think this is what the CTE "haters" as we're called have a problem with. It has nothing to do with that. Here's the problem, from my perspective. I'm borrowing Poolology to make the point. Also, I'm not posting this to be argumentative. It's just a restatement of this issue for new people:

Stan says if you learn CTE all you need to do is learn the A,B,C perceptions and forget the pocket because the shape of the pool table means that those A,B,C perceptions will all send the ob to the corners of the table (that is, the pockets). It is not unheard of to say that a formula or prescribed set of steps can send the ob to the pocket without the player really needing to have the experience of "just seeing" when the shot goes. The example, of course, is Poolology. This method makes use of the geometry of the table and allows you to send the ball to the corners of the table just the way Stan says that CTE does. You need a straight stroke and a little math and Poolology works. BUT, the table does not reveal this mathematical relationship for free. With Poolology, you need to determine where the balls are on a table grid and then do some math. THEN and ONLY THEN can you make use of the hidden magic that sends the balls to the pockets with Poolology.

Stan's method is basically an attempt to achieve what Poolology does without doing the math. Stan claims that if you look at the balls a certain way, the relationship between the balls and the pocket will reveal itself automatically, showing you the shot line. It's like trying to multiply two large numbers. If you have a calculator (Poolology) then no problem. If not (CTE) then you think that if you stare at the numbers the right way the answer will jump out at you. 20 years and still no explanation at all as to how this is true.

This is the crux of the argument to me. I know some won't like the way I laid it out but it's the clearest way I know to explain it.

It's pretty hard to lay something out the clearest way you can when the mind is so muddled, lacking correct information, and
an imagination that could write science fiction like no other. It's never stopped you from trying though. Keep up the hard work and maybe you'll get it right when you think it couldn't be more wrong.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Exactly. The front sight is pointed/aligned to ccb, and if a player wants the cb to go where they intend it to go, the grip/butt end of the cue must also be aligned to ccb. It's an odd way to think of cue positioning, but, like a rifle, there is a front and a rear sight/alignment point. We just don't have the ability to see both points of alignment at once. We see the front and feel or trust that the back is in line.

Stand behind a beginner and tell them to line up on a straight in shot through center cb. You'll notice many times that the tip is indeed lined to ccb, but when looking down the cue the butt or grip hand is off line, which means if the player strokes along that line the cb will not strike the ob accurately.

With experience the player will eventually get a good feel for knowing when the entire cue (front to rear) is on line for the shot. Until then, playing pool is like shooting a rifle with only a front sight, no rear sight to ensure proper alignment/aim. But once you get a feel for exactly where your cue is pointed or aligned, you start pocketing balls more effectively.

The big difference between a rifle and a cue is the back end of the two. A rifle sits snuggly against the inside of the shoulder slightly on the inside of the armpit and a slightly angled stance.

The back end of a cue can also be dead in line with the tip BUT, there's no bracing it against the body. Even when the body is angled correctly, if you've been around pool long enough which I know you have, you've seen players NOT go back in a straight line and have a tendency to pull the right hand away from the body and the straight alignment so the cue is then angled and coming back into the ball off angle to the left. The grip and wrist position can affect that also. Concave, straight, or convex. Not thought about very often or taught.

 

[The_JV]

Such bliss....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

… for every shot your cue must be aligned properly to send the cb to where it needs to be in order to pocket the ob. That involves looking at where your tip or shaft is in relation to where you want to strike the cb,

And, ideally, where your shaft is aligned in relation to the OB/ghost ball.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

And, ideally, where your shaft is aligned in relation to the OB/ghost ball.

pj
chgo

Aligning for english or use of backhand english changes that. 90/90 would be a prime example.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Aligning for english … changes that.

The stick can be aimed at the point on or near the OB/GB that correctly compensates for squirt, making that learned adjustment more “visible”.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The stick can be aimed at the point on or near the OB/GB that correctly compensates for squirt, making that learned adjustment more “visible”.

pj
chgo

What you posted is true and correct for those who choose to aim and play a certain way involving a GB or making adjustments for contact points and fractions across the entire face of the OB and CB. However, there are in fact other or different ways to play where it isn't seen like that or a part of the process. Which has always been one of the areas for dissent, among others.
How is it solved? On the table with balls, a cue, and know how...not on a forum with thousands of posts and words.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

You do aim with your eyes. Yet when trying to "feel" aim, the bridge hand is several feet closer to the ball than the stroke hand and can be helpful in cue placement.