CM360 Referencing System

Hi Rick,

This is probably the first time anyone share that the shadow system was used 50 years ago...any ideas who started it? Can you share with us the visualization aspect on how this system is used in the past? Or how you use this system to visualize the shot and the process before execution? I've developed my own pattern on how to visualize the shot but curious how this might have been done back then.

I can't find any reference anywhere and came up with this idea when I was learning the 90/90 system from late Ron V. I'm really surprised that I don't see any reference but imagine someone would have already though of this years ago.

Have you looked at the SEE system (very comprehensive system by Ekkes), that where the shadow of the cue ball is used and my system only need 2 alignment which already covers all of the shots on the table. My main objective with these reference lines are to help the players find and established their center. Once the foundation for center is is understood..the players can move on to learn about the impact of spin with tangent (clock system) for a complete 360 reference training system.

Never tried using the shadow of cueball and object ball for severe cut shot but I'll look into it to see if that will help. The edge to shadow is pretty effective and works much better when the stroke and distance between the tip and cue ball is minimized.

Br,
Duc.

ENGLISH! said:
I watched the video. I've been using the shadows off & on for nearly 50 years, since I was about 14 years old.

What I found to be an issue is the transition were the center of the cue ball to the vertical line at the shadow point no longer works.

You only talked about using two alignments, center CB to the shadow & edge of CB to the shadow. I use Three(3). I also use the shadow line of the Cue Ball to the shadow line of the Object ball. That is very much like the equal & opposite overlap method but with the visual aids.

If you will note in the video demonstration that when you tried the more severe cuts by using the edge of the CB to the shadow line that you over cut several shots. Try using my 3rd. alignment, shadow to shadow.

The issue then becomes WHEN to make the transition from center of CB to Shadow of CB to edge of CB. Using the wrong one for a given shot will cause one to miss. That is because one is using a manual method that sort of takes out at least some of ones subconscious input. That is why I have flipped back & forth using it over the years.

Also, I would like to point out that in my 3rd alignment method one must have a rather low head position in order to align shadow line to shadow line properly.

It is a fairly good method & one that can certainly be used by even beginners to start to give them recognition & 'Feel" for all of the different cut shots... but like any system it too has some issues...but I really like it because the shadow line adjusts naturally by the use of light Relative to the balls position on the table as they change all over the table... or rather relative to the position of ones eye behind the cue ball & the OB's position on the table relative to the the light source.

Perhaps after you try the shadow to shadow alignment you can make a video about that alignment.

Good job with introducing this. It is a rather good very simple method except for the issue of when one should transition to the other alignments... but with experience & hitting "enough" shots the subconscious mind can make that determination with a rather high level of success... but not perfection... even after all of this time when I am playing with this manual alignment method doubt creeps in for some of those shots at the transition areas. When there is any doubt, that is when I abandon the method & just let my subconscious make the determination as to the line with no manual alignment of using the shadow(s). A very good player once told me no method makes all of the shots & that is why one needs more than one method. I think that may be a rather accurate statement.

Regards,
Rick
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi Duc,

My Dad took me to a bowling alley to introduced me to the game when I was 13. He basically showed me Ghost Ball but without ever mentioning that term. After going the bowling alley a few times 7 always having to wait for a table I think he saw that I had an aptitude for the game & asked if I wanted to go in with him & buy a table for the garage. We bought a Brunswick Sport King from out of a 'Lounge' that was selling 4 tables. That was late 1968.

Anyway, I was often alone in the garage after school & my homework had already been done. I learned on my own. I thought I had invented the equal & opposite overlap method when I was 14. One day, I just noticed that the shadow on the table seemed to be right under my aim point for the full shots. I then started to use it & it worked.

As I said, when the cut gets to a certain point one will under cut the shot if the center of the CB is 'aimed' at the shadow line. So... I think I just started to rotate to put some outside english on the ball to throw those into the pocket. When the cut was too much for that, I just started going outside of the shadow line. Over time of makes & misses I stumbled onto the shadow to shadow thing. I think I probably did because I have always had a very low head & eye position even though I have never been a chin on cue guy. I wish I could tell you that Willie Mosconi taught it to me, but I can't honestly say that.

I've never been one to use the edge of the CB to any point on the OB. For those shots that are more cut than the shadow to shadow, I've used equal & opposite overlap which is contact point to contact point. The only thing that I have done with the inside edge of the CB is to align it to the outside 1/4 line of the OB & then use TOI. I'll have to give YOUR edge of CB to the shadow a try.

I wish I could give you more of what you requested, but atlas, I don't have it.

I think regardless of what method one is trying to use it comes done to the numbers, enough experience for the subconscious mind to build a data base of makes & misses for which to then use THAT for the subconscious decision making process based of that experience with that method.

As I also said, it is the shots right at or very near to the transition angles that still cause me some doubt even after all of these years. I then I try the one that I THINK it is... or I abandon all method & just trust my subconscious while NOT using any method.

Who knows there may even be an area between the transitions where neither one is a solution, a sort of dead spot in the method.

I hope something here is for what you were asking or if not perhaps something that gives you cause to think further.

All the Best for You & Yours.

PS I reread your last post & noticed that you mentioned the shadow to shadow method for sever cuts. That has not been my experience. I would say that those are more for the intermediate in between shots. to me there is a limit on the amount of cut that can be had by the shadow to shadow alignment & that is when I think YOUR edge of CB to the shadow might take over. I wish it could be as easy as just two references but I do not think two is truly enough even with the movement of the shadow as the ball differs on the table... at least not without some sort of subconsciously learned adjustment. Cj Wiley said that he uses only CTC & CTE alignments for TOI. I could not do that when I use it. Perhaps because TOI is a very dynamic method & I was using Low Squirt shafts, but I then had to had the edge of CB to outside 1/4 line as a 3rd. intermediate alignment. I hope this makes sense as I have tried to say it.
 
Last edited:
Hi Rick,

I think there are really only 4 type of shots in my reference system, the straight in shot, the shot between the straight in and half ball, half ball shot and then everything else. Anything beyond the half ball, you can align and aim with the edge of the cue to the shadow on the object ball...essentially you get to maximum edge to edge with just playing natural. Anything else beyond that requires spin and deflection to throw or curve the cue ball. The underlying reference system was designed to help lower level players get up to speeds and move up to the B and A categories fairly quickly.

"As I said, when the cut gets to a certain point one will under cut the shot if the center of the CB is 'aimed' at the shadow line." This is only true is you'll do center to shadow which is only dynamic from a straight in shoot to half ball shot. Edge to Shadow covers essentially all of the cut shots beyond half ball.

When I said I would look at how shadow of cue ball to shadow of object ball, I guess I misunderstood that you used this for thin cut shots. If you check out the SEE system, they do have this cover in their system.

My reference aiming system will help a player define a set of reliable aim lines that will essentially with practice teach their subscoious to be more efficient in collecting more useful information to horn in the line of aim required to makes the shot. At the end of the day, you shouldn't be really using any system when you playing...you should be playing instinctively and naturally. I mean, your approach to the shot and before shots rountine should be practice but you shouldn't be thinking about it when you're playing the game and that also true for aiming. If you're guessing...than it means you don't understand the shot so get up and figure it out before you get down to shoot. My moto is "learn to aim so you don't have to aim".
 
Last edited:
Cuemaster98 said:
Hi Rick,

I think there are really only 4 type of shots in my reference system, the straight in shot, the shot between the straight in and half ball, half ball shot and then everything else. Anything beyond the half ball, you can align and aim with the edge of the cue to the shadow on the object ball...essentially you get to maximum edge to edge with just playing natural. Anything else beyond that requires spin and deflection to throw or curve the cue ball. The underlying reference system was designed to help lower level players get up to speeds and move up to the B and A categories fairly quickly.

"As I said, when the cut gets to a certain point one will under cut the shot if the center of the CB is 'aimed' at the shadow line." This is only true is you'll do center to shadow which is only dynamic from a straight in shoot to half ball shot. Edge to Shadow covers essentially all of the cut shots beyond half ball.

When I said I would look at how shadow of cue ball to shadow of object ball, I guess I misunderstood that you used this for thin cut shots. If you check out the SEE system, they do have this cover in their system.

My reference aiming system will help a player define a set of reliable aim lines that will essentially with practice teach their subscoious to be more efficient in collecting more useful information to horn in the line of aim required to makes the shot. At the end of the day, you shouldn't be really using any system when you playing...you should be playing instinctively and naturally. I mean, your approach to the shot and before shots rountine should be practice but you shouldn't be thinking about it when you're playing the game and that also true for aiming. If you're guessing...than it means you don't understand the shot so get up and figure it out before you get down to shoot. My moto is "learn to aim so you don't have to aim".
Click to expand...

I hear you. One should be able to get down on a shot & close their eyes & stroke it into the pocket.

But... there are days when that is no problem... & then there are days when that not so easy.

I've been playing one pocket for the last year & there are times that I am shooting shots that I would never be shooting in any other game. So... I do not have a large subconscious data base for those shots.

Sometimes I will use the shadow method for those shots.

I think one of the issues here on AZB is that many things are said in an absolute manner... but I don't find that things are that cut & dry ALL of the time.

WE as human beings are not the same absolute day in & day out. There are rather many reasons why that is & one could address them, but when one is playing the game at a more casual level & perhaps more just for the enjoyment of the game.... those 'bad' days are more likely to just pop up... & if one wants to play as well as possible for that day... one should have something to fall back on.

I think the shadow method is a good method for which to get a feel for the different angled shots but it still takes the repetitions of makes & misses for the subconscious mind to get versed enough to replace the method with a see, drop, & shoot without any 'mechanical' help.

I'm a bit perplexed when you say that the edge to shadow will cover the shots past center to shadow.

For a shot at the end of the center to shadow range that would miss too full... going to the edge to shadow is moving a whole 1/2 ball. That seems like a very large change.

That is why I use the shadow to shadow line that I happened onto so many years ago... & I think it works because it is using two variables, one on each ball... so it is not just a drastic change as a whole 1/2 ball.

I should be going to the hall tomorrow & I will give Your Edge to Shadow line a good look see.

Best 2 Ya.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, the reference aiming system or any systems still requires you to put in the work if you want to improve your game but not as much work as you're working smarter and more efficient than if you didn't have a system to follow. That's what i love about pool...you can have all the pool knowledge but you still need to execute them :)

"I'm a bit perplexed when you say that the edge to shadow will cover the shots past center to shadow."

Everything beyond a half ball hit is covered by edge of cue ball to shadow (this might be what's confusing you...the shadow define how thick or thin you need to cut the object ball). The reference aim line is dynamic so basically you're defining your center with a consistent method and over time you'll be able to recognize the cut shot and adjust accordingly for it. The key and unique part here is that you are referencing the edge of the cue ball for aiming but you are still playing a natural shot. The aim line on the edge of the cue ball is parallel to the center of your cue ball aim line. Not sure if that make sense, if you look at my video again you'll see what mean. As part of the visualization process, your focus on this perceived cut is key along with keeping your tip close to the cue ball for a straighter stroke. As a thin cut shot mean that almost all of the kinetic energy is remain with the cue ball upon contact, you don't need to let your stroke loose here and should focus on path of the cue ball and control the speed.
 
Last edited:
Cuemaster98 said:
Oh yes, the reference aiming system or any systems still requires you to put in the work if you want to improve your game but not as much work as you're working smarter and more efficient than if you didn't have a system to follow. That's what i love about pool...you can have all the pool knowledge but you still need to execute them :)

"I'm a bit perplexed when you say that the edge to shadow will cover the shots past center to shadow."

Everything beyond a half ball hit is covered by edge of cue ball to shadow (this might be what's confusing you...the shadow define how thick or thin you need to cut the object ball). The reference aim line is dynamic so basically you're defining your center with a consistent method and over time you'll be able to recognize the cut shot and adjust accordingly for it. The key and unique part here is that you are referencing the edge of the cue ball for aiming but you are still playing a natural shot. The aim line on the edge of the cue ball is parallel to the center of your cue ball aim line. Not sure if that make sense, if you look at my video again you'll see what mean. As part of the visualization process, your focus on this perceived cut is key along with keeping your tip close to the cue ball for a straighter stroke. As a thin cut shot mean that almost all of the kinetic energy is transfer to the object ball upon contact, you don't need to let your stroke loose here and should focus on path of the cue ball and control the speed.
Click to expand...

I Totally understand that the center line is parallel as I was using equal & opposite overlap nearly 50 years ago. The cue line is parallel to the line where the fractions align.

That said, I think we are at times not talking about the same things.

Picture a straight shot... then progressive cuts to the left. As the center line through the CB moves off of the center of the OB... the left edge of the CB also moves off of the left edge of the OB & towards its center.

When the center line of the CB gets to the right edge of the OB the left edge of the CB is at the enter of the OB.

The center line has been off of the shadows for quite some time before it gets to the right edge but the edge of the CB is just getting to the center of the OB.

This is where I see a gap in Your method of going directly to using the edge of the CB at the shadow. You over cut several in the video.

When the edge of the CB is at the center of the OB the shadow of each are closer to one another than the Edge is to the shadow of the OB.

I have been using that shadow to shadow until the angle gets too great. At that point I would abandon the shadow method & go to the equal & opposite overlap for the more severe cuts...

But now... I will give Your edge to shadow method a try for those more severe angles.

As I said in my other post the only time I have used the inside edge of the CB is when I added a 3rd. alignment to CJ Wiley's CTC & CTE for TOI.

I should get to The Hall Tomorrow & I'll let you know what I think abut the edge to shadow method.

Best 2 Ya.
 
Cuemaster98 said:
Hi Rick,

This is probably the first time anyone share that the shadow system was used 50 years ago...any ideas who started it? Can you share with us the visualization aspect on how this system is used in the past? Or how you use this system to visualize the shot and the process before execution? I've developed my own pattern on how to visualize the shot but curious how this might have been done back then.
Click to expand...

Duc: My father was using reflections of light on the OB and CB as reference points for alignment in the 1950s, and my maternal grandfather (who taught me by playing straight rotation) used a combination of light reflections and shadows for alignment as far back as the early 1940s, so the general concept has been around as long as pool tables started having direct light sources. I was never able to get it, as too often the shadows are too soft/gray on the edges to get the alignment confidently accurate for me. Your system seems to be a little easier to grasp, but I suspect someone would have to spend a bit of time making this their own. Thanks for the post!

Bill
 
Shadows vary with lighting conditions like this:

Billiards_Pool Table Lights.jpg
 
Honestly, I can say in the last 10 years that I've never played in lighting condition as pictured. This looks to be a pool table in a house during the day with direct sunlight. I'll be hard press to find lighting condition like these in any pool hall lol.

End of the days once you have these reference lines in grain in your mind and your practice them...you don't need the shadow...you will be able to just get down and shoot. The shadow is only a reference that help you determine the reference aim line essentially helping you find center. Once you established center, your eye and visualization process does all the aiming for you.


LAMas said:
Shadows vary with lighting conditions like this:

View attachment 441453
Click to expand...
 
^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi Duc,

I'm heading to the hall soon, but I would like to ask you a question.

You have several times said that the shadow is a reference to find center.
I do not understand. I can 'find' the center of the cue ball with no other balls or shadows on the table.

The point of any aiming method is to assist in 'finding' the actual shot line... such as perhaps for shots under 23*... align the center CB to the OB shadow... for shots between 23 to 45*... align the CB shadow to the OB shadow.... for shots between 45 to 68*... align the inside edge of the CB to the OB shadow...& for shots greater than 68* align the edge of the CB to some point between the shadow & the outside edge of the CB.

The above is just arbitrary as an example.

It SEEMS to ME that you have been saying of late that the center to shadow & the edge to shadow are just starting points from which one would then adjust. for the shot at hand based on experience.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Best 2 Ya.

PS I too have used the light reflection on the ball as a guide, but I found that with my low head position that the shadow was better.

Also I failed to mention that when I at times have a shot in what I call the transition area I sometimes just align the inside edge of my stick to the shadow instead of the center line of the stick. I've found that it works rather well, but naturally it is dependent on my judgement as to when to use that method.
 
Hi Duc,

I tried your system out last night with some reasonable success, especially on shots with not too much angle.

In the past I often found myself pivoting around a little bit when i'm already down on the shot, as if I'm guessing trying to find the correct shot line to pocket the OB.

One thing I've noticed, it seems the further down my head goes when down on the shot it changes the shadow point (the V between the shadow and OB) on the OB. Like, if my head is as low as possible there basically isn't a shadow point or hardly one at all since the shadow is 2D on the cloth of course.

So my question is do you find that shadow point on the OB while directly standing over the OB, or when you're down on the shot (but not too far down). Maybe you or someone who is also good at using shadows can elighten me a bit.

thanks
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi Waldo,

I've never been a high head guy & when using the shadows I have always used the shadow once down in my low head shooting position.

When you get low enough , you will be able to see the light on the other side of the ball. That defines the lines more in depth, in contrast. It will appear as a small triangle with curved sides & it can be an aid too.

So... you can sort of do both... use the shadow while tall as a general line & once down fine tune tight to the shadow which should appear slightly different once down.

I tried Duc's edge of CB to the shadow yesterday & "I" found that it over cut rather many shots. I had never used it before as I have used the shadow of the CB aligned to the shadow of the OB for the intermediate cuts. I compared these two alignments yesterday & found that the shadow to shadow had a much wider range of accuracy as they BOTH change depending on their position while the edge of the CB remain a constant.

I did find that the edge to the shadow works rather well for the more severe cut shots but I even over cut rather many of them while making some very nicely.

Overall I think it is a good method if one uses all 3 parts of the CB, center, shadow, & edge of CB aligned to the shadow while also using the light on the the other side of the ball.

I have been having an issue the last couple of weeks & I am glad that this thread brought me back to the shadows which can also just be used sort of a double check once one gets down naturally from picking the line while standing.

I hope something here helps make it even better for you.

Best 2 Ya.
Rick
 
Hi Everyone,

Wishing you all a happy Thanksgiving and best of rolls for the holidays.

Rick, the term finding your center is reference to a player understanding of the foundation of a natural shot derived from the ability to hit center ball, the aiming line and target. Really, it just a term used by me to reference the fact that you understand the shot and you have the ability to deviate and adjust accordingly. You can confirm that you found your center when you're in Dead Stroke.

"It SEEMS to ME that you have been saying of late that the center to shadow & the edge to shadow are just starting points from which one would then adjust. for the shot at hand based on experience."

Yes, it is the reason why I refer to the system a reference aiming system. These aim lines are guidelines that will allow your brain to build over time with experience to be able to horn into the correct lines more precisely as you progress in your ability. It provides a powerful reference from which you can practice and continue to learn base on your skills and attributes to develop a system that is really your own. Everyone has a different stroke and hence will have to adjust their aim but these guideline allow you to learn from understanding your own stroke. When I give lesson to players, I always first teach them to understand the cue that they are using, eg. type of joint, weight, balance, type of tips, curvature of the tips and it impact on your consistency, etc. Then I start with looking at their current state of stroke. Do some stroke tests to understand if they can really hit center ball...you're be surprise at how many top level players around the world that can't hit center ball. Most of them adjust with a little english to keep their stroke straighter. The reason why some players struggle with over cutting or under cutting the shot using CB Edge to Shadow or any other systems is because they can not hit a center ball as precisely as they would like. It's a easy test, from the foot stop, just try to shot center ball and have the ball come back to touch your tip. Its much easier to hit high because the sweet spot to hit center is much larger where as center hit is much harder. It's for this reason that when you're cutting a shot that you want to keep your tip closer to the cue ball and hit high for much better success at make the ball. The CB to Edge works fine, you just need to make the right adjustment as you practice and eventually you'll be able to see the shot. It's important to note that the dynamic aim line is just one factor to consistency, what probably more important is your understanding and process for visualizing the shot as your subconscious is always learning to adjust automatically for you with every shot.

One of the best advice I got when I was playing pool was from Paul Thornley in Canada who told me how he spent a significant amount of time hitting center ball. This is something that I try to pass on to players as they are developing their skills as I think it one of the most important shot to practice. The primary reason is that this shot alone tell you so much about your stroke and what you are doing wrong and how you can compensate for your flaw. Even if you can't hit center ball, understanding that your add for some reason in the stroke a tad of right or left allow you to adjust accordingly with this knowledge until you can correct the flaw. Some players for all of their life knows and use it to their advantage.

I have not had a chance to try cb shadow to ob shadow so I will follow up. Am assuming that the dynamic aim line is the same concepts as cb edge to ob shadow that I'm using but the different is that the line from the shadow on CB (shadow meet edge of CB) to OB Shadow will be parallel to the natural shot lines (High, Center and Low).

Happy Holidays,
Duc.


ENGLISH! said:
^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi Duc,

I'm heading to the hall soon, but I would like to ask you a question.

You have several times said that the shadow is a reference to find center.
I do not understand. I can 'find' the center of the cue ball with no other balls or shadows on the table.

The point of any aiming method is to assist in 'finding' the actual shot line... such as perhaps for shots under 23*... align the center CB to the OB shadow... for shots between 23 to 45*... align the CB shadow to the OB shadow.... for shots between 45 to 68*... align the inside edge of the CB to the OB shadow...& for shots greater than 68* align the edge of the CB to some point between the shadow & the outside edge of the CB.

The above is just arbitrary as an example.

It SEEMS to ME that you have been saying of late that the center to shadow & the edge to shadow are just starting points from which one would then adjust. for the shot at hand based on experience.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Best 2 Ya.

PS I too have used the light reflection on the ball as a guide, but I found that with my low head position that the shadow was better.

Also I failed to mention that when I at times have a shot in what I call the transition area I sometimes just align the inside edge of my stick to the shadow instead of the center line of the stick. I've found that it works rather well, but naturally it is dependent on my judgement as to when to use that method.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi Waldo,

The reference aiming system derived the reference lines from the fact that if you start from the center of the ball you will be able to find the Dynamic aiming reference lines for your shot to make the object ball.

When you standing up and looking at the object ball, it really hard to see exactly where the object ball actually sit on the cloth until you down in your stroke but you can still see roughly where to make the straight shot at any elevation (same line). However, as you get down you probably notice that you start to clearly see the object ball physically touching the cloth but what's important is that the line or angle where you are looking at this object ball is from the perspective of the cue ball center. Similarly, when you step into the shot line for a CB Center to OB shadow, as you get down the shadow seem to move more precisely for you but in reality its the same line as it Dynamic. I can't tell you the optimum level at which this connection will be more relevant for you based on your height and body structure but these lines theoretically should work at all elevation based on your perspective as long as it coming from the center of the cue ball. Of course, as it 2D, if you get down to the point where you don't see that shadow...than I say good luck to you in guessing at the line. Lol.

Br,
Duc.

Wald0 said:
Hi Duc,

I tried your system out last night with some reasonable success, especially on shots with not too much angle.

In the past I often found myself pivoting around a little bit when i'm already down on the shot, as if I'm guessing trying to find the correct shot line to pocket the OB.

One thing I've noticed, it seems the further down my head goes when down on the shot it changes the shadow point (the V between the shadow and OB) on the OB. Like, if my head is as low as possible there basically isn't a shadow point or hardly one at all since the shadow is 2D on the cloth of course.

So my question is do you find that shadow point on the OB while directly standing over the OB, or when you're down on the shot (but not too far down). Maybe you or someone who is also good at using shadows can elighten me a bit.

thanks
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi Duc,

I think we may be having a bit of a language issue.

What do you mean when you use the word 'Dynamic' when referring to a shot line?

When I refer to shadow to shadow, I mean the same shadow of the OB to which you refer that is on the 'outside' relative to the pocket. When I align Shadow to Shadow, I use the shadow of the Cue Ball that is on the 'inside' relative to the pocket.

This alignment, line, 'creates' an amount, portion, of the CB on the inside of the line & an equal amount, portion, of the OB on the outside of the line. It is an equal & opposite 'fractional' division of the two balls. The thing is that it is not 1/2, 1/4, 3/8, etc., but is instead an 'arbitrary' or should I say a specific amount that is 'chosen' by the shadows & not me, the shooter.

The thing is that the shadows vary depending on where the balls are & are being view from... & are different from shot to shot.

"I" found that when "I" used Your edge to shadow method, I over cut rather many shots. But... while using the shadow to shadow method, that was not the case. My stroke is what it is... but it is basically the same from shot to shot.

I think I am willing to give more credit to the shadows than it seems that you are.

When I was at the table Wednesday to try Your edge to shadow method, I went into full objective aiming(aligning)mode. By that I mean that I try very very much to only employ the method & to NOT use my Subconscious Data base to influence the shots. After I decided which of the 3 alignments to use regarding the shadows... I never even look at the pocket. I merely looked at the shadow of the OB & then aligned Center, Shadow, or Edge of the CB to it.

I know that that is only 3 alignments & if not for the varying shadow would only yield 3 outcome angles, but... the shadow does vary depending on position & viewpoint.

I think trying to put it into appropriate language is a bit difficult & perhaps the language may even be a bit lacking.

Anyway, I would suggest that anyone interested simply give it Their Own Try & then make Their Own Determination if they think it can perhaps be of Benefit to Them.

Best 2 Ya.
 
Last edited:
Hi Rick,

Not sure maybe terminology needs to be defined as I think I try to illustrate that the shot line is dynamic based on your perspective of the shot. The aim line changes as you change elevation....so in that sense...it's dynamic and always changing from the perspective of the cue ball center. Does that make sense?

I finally had a chance to try the shadow to shadow method and I have to say I'm not very clear on the exact processes....can you please share some illustrations?

From your description, I tried lining up the shadow of the cue ball to shadow of object ball. The shadow on the cue ball is where the shadow end on the cue ball and same for object ball. I tried this alignment with limited success but I can see with practice am sure a player can use this alignment. As I have not practice with this alignment, it was tricky in how I addressed the cue ball and shot line. So before I shoot, I had to first align the shadow to shadow to find the line and then parallel shift that line to my center line.....as it was tricky to visualize the line. How do you address and find this line from the perspective of playing the shot naturally?

With center ball, I find myself under cutting the shot but I had better success when I used high with this alignment. If you practice this method and start to see the line, I can see that it can be a useful tool in a player tool kit to be utilized. I can the say the method works but too be honest I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly. I will need more information and confirmation before I can provide better feedback on it. So far, it seem to works but my only issue is understanding how to better address the shot with this alignment before I get down.

It would be great in Ekkes can comment on this shadow to shadow as I think this alignment is more in his realm....with my referencing system....everything start from the center on the cue ball (even CB edge to shadow). I know that the Filipino style also uses shadow of the cue ball to the center of the object ball...which is also amazing and works very well as it not only address alignment but also the pre-stroke and execution processes. It's essentially a complete shooting system from start to finish.....Bustumante uses this style...check out some of his video and you'll see what I mean....so anything shadow of cue ball is not part of my system.

The fact that CB edge is a constant is one of the key factor to CB edge to shadow consistency as the ball edge is tangible and very easy for the subconscious to recognized and learn.

When using the CB Edge to shadow, I should have point out that you need to step into either a half ball shot line or Edge to Edge shot line and then adjust to the shadow. The player should be able to recognize based on the severity of the cut which shot line should be use. These two alignment help a player eliminate a number of options for your brain as we already know that Center to OB Edge is a half ball...so any cut shot greater than half ball, you can start with the alignment and adjust to the shadow fairly quickly. Shooting shots like this over and over will eventually help your brain cut down on the number of options it eliminate and allow the subconscious to be more efficient in collecting useful information to zero in on the correct line of shot.

Hopefully, this will provide more insight into the CM360 referencing system.

Br,
Duc.

ENGLISH! said:
Hi Duc,

I think we may be having a bit of a language issue.

What do you mean when you use the word 'Dynamic' when referring to a shot line?

When I refer to shadow to shadow, I mean the same shadow of the OB to which you refer that is on the 'outside' relative to the pocket. When I align Shadow to Shadow, I use the shadow of the Cue Ball that is on the 'inside' relative to the pocket.

This alignment, line, 'creates' an amount, portion, of the CB on the inside of the line & an equal amount, portion, of the OB on the outside of the line. It is an equal & opposite 'fractional' division of the two balls. The thing is that it is not 1/2, 1/4, 3/8, etc., but is instead an 'arbitrary' or should I say a specific amount that is 'chosen' by the shadows & not me, the shooter.

The thing is that the shadows vary depending on where the balls are & are being view from... & are different from shot to shot.

"I" found that when "I" used Your edge to shadow method, I over cut rather many shots. But... while using the shadow to shadow method, that was not the case. My stroke is what it is... but it is basically the same from shot to shot.

I think I am willing to give more credit to the shadows than it seems that you are.

When I was at the table Wednesday to try Your edge to shadow method, I went into full objective aiming(aligning)mode. By that I mean that I try very very much to only employ the method & to NOT use my Subconscious Data base to influence the shots. After I decided which of the 3 alignments to use regarding the shadows... I never even look at the pocket. I merely looked at the shadow of the OB & then aligned Center, Shadow, or Edge of the CB to it.

I know that that is only 3 alignments & if not for the varying shadow would only yield 3 outcome angles, but... the shadow does vary depending on position & viewpoint.

I think trying to put it into appropriate language is a bit difficult & perhaps the language may even be a bit lacking.

Anyway, I would suggest that anyone interested simply give it Their Own Try & then make Their Own Determination if they think it can perhaps be of Benefit to Them.

Best 2 Ya.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cuemaster98 said:
Hi Rick,

Not sure maybe terminology needs to be defined as I think I try to illustrate that the shot line is dynamic based on your perspective of the shot. The aim line changes as you change elevation....so in that sense...it's dynamic and always changing from the perspective of the cue ball center. Does that make sense?

I finally had a chance to try the shadow to shadow method and I have to say I'm not very clear on the exact processes....can you please share some illustrations?

From your description, I tried lining up the shadow of the cue ball to shadow of object ball. The shadow on the cue ball is where the shadow end on the cue ball and same for object ball. I tried this alignment with limited success but I can see with practice am sure a player can use this alignment. As I have not practice with this alignment, it was tricky in how I addressed the cue ball and shot line. So before I shoot, I had to first align the shadow to shadow to find the line and then parallel shift that line to my center line.....as it was tricky to visualize the line. How do you address and find this line from the perspective of playing the shot naturally?

With center ball, I find myself under cutting the shot but I had better success when I used high with this alignment. If you practice this method and start to see the line, I can see that it can be a useful tool in a player tool kit to be utilized. I can the say the method works but too be honest I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly. I will need more information and confirmation before I can provide better feedback on it. So far, it seem to works but my only issue is understanding how to better address the shot with this alignment before I get down.

It would be great in Ekkes can comment on this shadow to shadow as I think this alignment is more in his realm....with my referencing system....everything start from the center on the cue ball (even CB edge to shadow). I know that the Filipino style also uses shadow of the cue ball to the center of the object ball...which is also amazing and works very well as it not only address alignment but also the pre-stroke and execution processes. It's essentially a complete shooting system from start to finish.....Bustumante uses this style...check out some of his video and you'll see what I mean....so anything shadow of cue ball is not part of my system.

The fact that CB edge is a constant is one of the key factor to CB edge to shadow consistency as the ball edge is tangible and very easy for the subconscious to recognized and learn.

When using the CB Edge to shadow, I should have point out that you need to step into either a half ball shot line or Edge to Edge shot line and then adjust to the shadow. The player should be able to recognize based on the severity of the cut which shot line should be use. These two alignment help a player eliminate a number of options for your brain as we already know that Center to OB Edge is a half ball...so any cut shot greater than half ball, you can start with the alignment and adjust to the shadow fairly quickly. Shooting shots like this over and over will eventually help your brain cut down on the number of options it eliminate and allow the subconscious to be more efficient in collecting useful information to zero in on the correct line of shot.

Hopefully, this will provide more insight into the CM360 referencing system.

Br,
Duc.
Click to expand...

Hi Duc,

I would think that if one can align the edge of the CB to the OB Shadow with the cue stick at center & parallel to that line... then one should be able to align shadow to shadow with the cue stick at center & parallel to THAT line... as there is less difference between the Shadow Line & Center Line than there is between the Edge Line & the Center Line. Once the center CB line is aligned outside of the edge of the OB, the cue stick is pointing out into space with no real reference anyway. So... at what is one then aiming with the Center Line?

One has to have spacial awareness & recognition...because the center point of the CB on the center line is only the contact point & actual 'bullet or arrow point' for straight in shots. It is the many points from that center point all the way to 90* (Edge Pt.) along the circumference of the CB that is the 'bullet or arrow point' for the striking of the up to 90 varying targets on the OB.

It is the point to point for each individual angle of shot that must be matched up. IMO that is what ones focus must be& of what one must be aware.. especially if one is ever going to do away with conscious methods. Even when one 'aims' the center line point of the CB at the Shadow line point it is not the center line point of the CB that strikes that shadow line point. The actual contact point to contact point is inside of both of those other points.

Even when not teaching TOI, CJ Wiley taught aligning various division 'points' of the CB to only the center & edge of the OB. Yet it is not those actual points that are the physical contact points that are making the shot. Hence every shot is an 'illusion' of the 'Aiming Method' that is being used... or rather it is the aiming method that is the illusion of the real mechanics of the shot.

As I have said... 2 alignments are not enough for all of the cut angles... without significant subconscious variation from those alignments...but 3 or 4 or one that varies & is changing would certainly seem better to me than only 2... as they then decrease the amount & degree of subconscious variations needed for success.

TOI is a very dynamic method as the CB is squirted to varying degrees based off of just two alignments for CJ Wiley.... but I had a bit of difficulty based on just too alignments because of the degree of different amounts of squirt required for success. but when I added a third alignment in between, that degree was reduced & the amount kept more 'consistent' from shot to shot & THAT allows ones subconscious to work less hard & with more consistency.

Please do not take my words as any kind of 'argument' with your approach. I appreciate you introducing me to the edge to shadow alignment as I see it as an additional alignment method that reduces the work that my subconscious needs to do by giving me yet another useful alignment that works very well for the higher angled degree of cut shots.

As I said, anyone interested in using the shadows should give it their own try & make their own determination if it can be of any benefit for them.

All the Best for You & Yours.
Rick
 
Hi Rick,

I appreciate the feedback from you so hopefully you don't take any of my words as argument as well but really am just trying to better understand the concepts you are conveying and I believe discussion are healthy in helping each other learn. Hopefully, other that read this thread can jump in to ask questions and challenge assumptions that are been made.

You said that the 2 Alignments in my system are not enough to cover all the shots and that the shadow to shadow could be used as a 3rd Alignment to help further define this system. However, so far, I haven't found that to be the case as I already explains how using edge of cue ball as an aiming constant help addresses all cut shots that are greater than half ball shot to edge to edge shots. The transition between these 2 alignments are very clear as well as the approach outlined. I believe that having only 2 alignments along with the 2 obvious one help keep my CM360 referencing system simple and easy to learn. When a player starts getting better, I'm sure that they will want to explore more complex and in depth system that can hopefully further advanced their game.

I agreed that shadow to shadow method is another viable system that will address the shots you described but I will leave it to the players to tried this method and compare to what I've presented here.

IMHO, I think that lining the center of the cue ball to shadow is not the same as lining Shadow to Shadow (Even Cue Ball Edge to Shadow) as there is no constant variable (center and edge) that you can reliably use. Using shadow to shadow required more work to decipher the line based on two dynamic variables and then you need to address it from a center line....to me that seem harder than having a constant variable you can rely on to address the shot. This was the reason that I asked you about the process on how to approach the shot. I've explained how I've interpreted the process based on what I read so far and asked if my process was correct.

"Align Shadow to Shadow before you get down and then parallel shift to center line on cue ball?" The reason CB Edge alignment to shadow give players probably more trouble is because of the process for parallel shift to center line....this is one variable where problem can arise if the parallel shift to center is off. My approach to this problem as explain is used two processes to address the shot..eg...Center to Edge and Edge to Edge as the first alignment and then adjust to the shadow.

The shadow to shadow method is relying on the players to define these 2 dynamic aim targets to form the reference aim line. As I don't know the process...maybe you have an approach on how this can be made easy and help with consistency here? I've also tried doing Center to edge and Edge to Edge align first and then adjusting to the shadow to shadow line but my first approach seem to be more successful. No Doubt this alignment works but like any other system it will get easier once you start seeing the line instinctively.

I've offered an example of using the shadow of the cue ball to center of the object ball as a variation of this method where the process is again defined and has a constant variable (Center of Object ball). This of course, is a Filipino system that I've learned and one that is hard to adopt as the style is complete process and a unique way of playing pool. It's a really cool system that address the tempo and timing of the shots. Just watch Bustamante play if you want at look at this system. The shadow of the cue ball to the center of the object ball defined the reference aim line for the shot and as part of this process the delivery of the last stroke define the parallel shift back to the center of the cue ball. It's a really amazing process and I always wonder how they conceived this method. There was supposedly a book that goes into this system one AZ at one point but I never got a chance to get a copy to review.

Rick, you should really have a look at Ekkes SEE system...as I think you will really like his method. Similar to the Filipino system but Ekkes has a different approach to executing the shots.





ENGLISH! said:
Hi Duc,

I would think that if one can align the edge of the CB to the OB Shadow with the cue stick at center & parallel to that line... then one should be able to align shadow to shadow with the cue stick at center & parallel to THAT line... as there is less difference between the Shadow Line & Center Line than there is between the Edge Line & the Center Line. Once the center CB line is aligned outside of the edge of the OB, the cue stick is pointing out into space with no real reference anyway. So... at what is one then aiming with the Center Line?

One has to have spacial awareness & recognition...because the center point of the CB on the center line is only the contact point & actual 'bullet or arrow point' for straight in shots. It is the many points from that center point all the way to 90* (Edge Pt.) along the circumference of the CB that is the 'bullet or arrow point' for the striking of the up to 90 varying targets on the OB.

It is the point to point for each individual angle of shot that must be matched up. IMO that is what ones focus must be& of what one must be aware.. especially if one is ever going to do away with conscious methods. Even when one 'aims' the center line point of the CB at the Shadow line point it is not the center line point of the CB that strikes that shadow line point. The actual contact point to contact point is inside of both of those other points.

Even when not teaching TOI, CJ Wiley taught aligning various division 'points' of the CB to only the center & edge of the OB. Yet it is not those actual points that are the physical contact points that are making the shot. Hence every shot is an 'illusion' of the 'Aiming Method' that is being used... or rather it is the aiming method that is the illusion of the real mechanics of the shot.

As I have said... 2 alignments are not enough for all of the cut angles... without significant subconscious variation from those alignments...but 3 or 4 or one that varies & is changing would certainly seem better to me than only 2... as they then decrease the amount & degree of subconscious variations needed for success.

TOI is a very dynamic method as the CB is squirted to varying degrees based off of just two alignments for CJ Wiley.... but I had a bit of difficulty based on just too alignments because of the degree of different amounts of squirt required for success. but when I added a third alignment in between, that degree was reduced & the amount kept more 'consistent' from shot to shot & THAT allows ones subconscious to work less hard & with more consistency.

Please do not take my words as any kind of 'argument' with your approach. I appreciate you introducing me to the edge to shadow alignment as I see it as an additional alignment method that reduces the work that my subconscious needs to do by giving me yet another useful alignment that works very well for the higher angled degree of cut shots.

As I said, anyone interested in using the shadows should give it their own try & make their own determination if it can be of any benefit for them.

All the Best for You & Yours.
Rick
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi Duc,

I just lost a reply... so that may be a sign to shorten what I was going to say.

I'm glad we are both Good & see the exchange as positive.

I stopped doing a manual parallel shift for using english many decades ago.

I think I now have a better understanding for what you were asking. I simply go down until I see that shadow to shadow line & KNOW that my cue stick is at center & parallel to that line. The Human Mind & the Subconscious Mind are amazing as to what they can get accomplished if we do not erect road blocks to that process & do not make them subservient rather than a valued equal team mate.

If the shadow line of the CB is aligned to the center of the OB... is not the center line of the CB also aligned to the shadow of the OB? I personally find it more easy... or less difficult... to find & see the center of the CB than it is to find & see the center of the OB that is farther away along with the graphic aspects of the object balls that can distract vs the plain white of the CB.

As I said before, one has to have spacial awareness & recognition. Unfortunately, we are NOT all equipped equally in that department... & I think that THAT difference is what separates levels of players in many instances.... not that a deficiency can not be overcome... but I think that those methods are really just a different means of acquiring that spacial awareness & recognition.

The Game & How it is Played in so many different manners that arrive at the same conclusion is very interesting.

If you would like to continue with this I think it might be better if we narrow the exchanges down to more specifics as I think we both are encompassing very much in our thoughts that are not being transferred into text very well for communications purposes.

It seems that we are in disagreement as to whether the conscious 'choices' should be narrowed... or the required work of the subconscious. Even if 2 is doubled to 4... 4 is not too large of a number for a human mind to handle.

I see the slightly more initial alignments as a good thing rather than bad as it limits the amount of 'adjustment' from which that the subconscious mind must select.

When one goes away from CTC to go to Center to shadow... the area of any subconscious adjustment is "inward' toward the center, if... any is needed.

Then when it goes to STS the adjustment is again INward toward the the CTS line.

For the new to me edge to shadow line.. I see the adjustment for that to be in either direction as the only other reference is the ETE which basically has no result but one can adjust IN from there. I think that is why I abandoned the shadow all together at this point & would simply go to the other equal & opposite overlap or contact point to contact point perception.

When I say adjust... I am talking about subconsciously.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I think trying to make it a bit more easy with less adjustment options available for the subconscious mind to select from is beneficial vs reducing the alignments to just two(2).

Just food for thought.

All of the Best for You & Yours.
Rick

PS I certainly understand that the STS is more dynamic... but I also see that as a naturally built in benefit to the method... Just as I see the more dynamics of TOI) & I certainly do not see it as anything that is any more difficult... but I guess it might depend on ones spacial awareness & recognition ability. Personally I Like the visual as it is a naturally selected equal & opposite overlap for each shot & not an arbitrary estimate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top