Coming Soon... the end of all aiming system calculating.

[AtLarge]

Are you trying to say that SVB uses CTE???

No, SVB does not use CTE. Or, at least as of a few months ago he didn't.

The reason his name got into this thread is that he mentioned briefly a while ago on a tournament stream that he uses his stick or his ferrule to aim. He had to depart before the announcers could question him any more about it, so we don't really have any details on how he aims.

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned what SVB had said. But we really have no idea whether what SVB was talking about was the Mullen Method or something else involving the ferrule or stick. And even if he does use the Mullen Method, that doesn't mean that he uses it for all cut angles or without adjustments.

Please, let's not leap to the conclusion that SVB is a Mullenigan.

 

[peteypooldude]

Are you trying to say that SVB uses CTE???

No , he stated that retired snooker players come over here and kick our a$$ at 9b

 

[peteypooldude]

If I put the butt of my cue against my leg or hip and shift away radially with the hip being the axis of the rotation away from CTE...is that what a hip pivot would be?

Once my tip/bridge is placed, I move my hips until my tip reaches center ball

 

[LAMas]

Once my tip/bridge is placed, I move my hips until my tip reaches center ball

Thanks,
To me, you are pivoting the cue at your bridge and moving your hip and cue butt to achieve a proper stance/alignment for the shot.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...I would love to see a demonstration of ANY method that consistently makes longer non hanger shots that are between the 45 - 80 degree range.

Ghost Ball works for those, but not as easily as it does for thicker shots. I think Double the Distance (using the edges), if you can use it, is probably better for those shots. Not everybody can "see" the OB contact point, accurately double its distance from the OB's edge and accurately aim the edge of the cue ball at it. But if you can it can be very accurate.

If you go to the Aiming Calculator at Pool.bz you can see a nice graphic representation of the double overlap for any cut angle. Here are two examples from there (I added the red lines and text at the bottom showing Double the Distance). The Pool.Bz graphic is looking straight on at CB & OB of equal size (not to mention the nifty clear CB), which makes sighting the overlap look straightforward and easy. Real opaque balls at different distances with your eyes above them are not as easy.

30-degree cut (1/2 ball overlap)


45-degree cut (slightly thicker than 1/4 ball overlap)


pj
chgo

 

[LAMas]

Ghost Ball works for those, but not as easily as it does for thicker shots. I think Double the Distance (using the edges), if you can use it, is probably better for those shots. Not everybody can "see" the OB contact point, accurately double its distance from the OB's edge and accurately aim the edge of the cue ball at it. But if you can it can be very accurate.

pj
chgo

Thanks...what I use to aim. As the CB and OB are closer together, there needs to be some adjustments when using double the distance aiming, but you know that.:smile:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Thanks...what I use to aim. As the CB and OB are closer together, there needs to be some adjustments when using double the distance aiming, but you know that.:smile:

I think it's often overestimated, though, because the distances on the OB are sighted not from the distance of the CB, but from the distance of the eyes, always more than 2 feet from the OB, so distortion is pretty limited.

pj
chgo

 

[rebound]

That's your position but it's not necessarily reality. I could show any method to ten people and many of them will take to it right away and look fluid in a matter of hours. Others might require days and others might never look fluid. The system exists outside the person, how a person adapts to it is an individual thing.

Would you say that you are a better player than Jimmy Reid? David Matlock?

Both of these players played at the "highest levels" and both of them are system fanatics.

There is a substitute for the judgment that comes from practice. It's called an aiming method. Do you not think of Ghost Ball as an aiming system?

So if I take two amateurs and let them both loose on a table for a week with zero instruction of any kind and after one week I measure their ball pocketing percentages - then I give one of them the ghost ball method and measure again after another week which amateur is likely have a higher percentage of pocketing?

Which amateur is more likely to be able to make shots that they had not practiced prior to shooting them?

Practice wrong, play wrong. I can shoot a million shots but if I am constantly being forced to adjust because I can't "judge" the aim line properly then I have practiced one million shots the wrong way.

What if I am on shot 500,000 and my miss/make percentage is still about 50% for a particular shot and then someone shows me an aiming system and suddenly my make percentage goes up 70%? What would you say then?

I would say your practice methods are poor.

I'm not saying I'm better than anyone and I'm wondering why you people keep insisting I have some interest in so-called Ghost Ball ideas.

The experts you refer to as system fanatics are statistically insignificant. That they succeed in spite of it is not proof that it is beneficial. This is a typical straw man argument.

I can only assume that those who are successful with this would be successful anyway with the right help. Again, I just can't imagine trying to play using some system that requires that I set up for a shot aiming anywhere other than straight down the line where I intend to hit the cue ball. I probably should bow out of this discussion now. There's no way you can convince me of the validity of this teaching method.

 

[rebound]

Thanks...what I use to aim. As the CB and OB are closer together, there needs to be some adjustments when using double the distance aiming, but you know that.:smile:

Adjustments, adjustments, adjustments. That's what I am railing against. Any method that requires making an adjustment after you bend down to make the shot is just plain poor. You can't properly perceive its effects. Distance shouldn't matter. The line of the shot stays the same regardless.

 

[LAMas]

I think it's often overestimated, though, because the distances on the OB are sighted not from the distance of the CB, but from the distance of the eyes, always more than 2 feet from the OB, so distortion is pretty limited.

pj
chgo

From dr.dave's site from sliderule:

This is the error which gets larger as the CB and OB get closer together:

 

[rebound]

For 1 SVB is not a retired snooker player, I would think before I spoke.
The pinoys are not snooker players. So there goes half your post.
And for the other half I played serious for 20 yrs and leveled out
YEARS ago. I was a pretty good player but my inconsistancy held me
back. After changing over to an advanced form of cte, I dont have
that problem anymore. I now have the ability to beat great players and
do on a regular basis. This is a FACT. So the rest of your post shows your
speaking of something you know nothing about. I dont want this to sound negative, But your findings are ridiculous

Your post doesn't make any of my post "go" anywhere. Who the hell is SVB? I see from another post you are implying he contradicts my opinion in some way. From what the other post said, it sounds like he backs it up. I was talking about alignment at address. You are saying that he pivots some part(s) of his body after he bends over but before his stroke. That's just plain ridiculous. Prove it. If the system helped you achieve consistency, more power to ya. It sounds to me like it just gave you a more structured way to think about your shots when you didn't previously. And yes, I do want this to sound negative. My original post was intended to point out the limitations of using a system like this. I'm not yet shaken from that belief. From what I've read in this thread, it doesn't always apply, it requires that you make adjustments in your body alignment while in the process of address, it requires arbitrary adjustments that cannot be applied consistently except by the natural ability of the player. This is a good system? I will admit I know nothing of this aiming system. I don't care to. I guess I should have stayed out of the discussion, but I'm all for anything that will help players improve and this seems more likely to stunt growth than promote it.

 

[SoniDJ]

The difference in having a system has shown its face tonight, this A player that used to give me the 6 and it was close is now giving me the 8 and not liking it. I haven't played this fella in a few months and even he noticed the difference. I won a set, he won a set and we went double hill on the last set, he won. I am stringing racks together like never before and actually getting a little respect as a better player. Having a method makes a difference.

 

[JB Cases]

I would say your practice methods are poor.

I'm not saying I'm better than anyone and I'm wondering why you people keep insisting I have some interest in so-called Ghost Ball ideas.

The experts you refer to as system fanatics are statistically insignificant. That they succeed in spite of it is not proof that it is beneficial. This is a typical straw man argument.

I can only assume that those who are successful with this would be successful anyway with the right help. Again, I just can't imagine trying to play using some system that requires that I set up for a shot aiming anywhere other than straight down the line where I intend to hit the cue ball. I probably should bow out of this discussion now. There's no way you can convince me of the validity of this teaching method.

That's probably a good idea. Many of us are interested in aiming systems and we like using them and playing around with them.

Regarding statistics no one has any stats regarding methods used vs. actual performance in pool. Pool is a poor sport. We don't have any multi-million dollar testing facilitites dedicated to studying the physical and physiological aspect of playing pool.

So having a lot of the best instructors out there teaching "non-standard" methods of aiming is just a strong testimonial to how much they believe in them over "conventional" methods such as Ghost Ball.

Lastly, all these aiming systems boil down to the same thing, the cue tip pointing at the cueball in a straight line to the object ball.

All of them require some form of judgement to make a decision as to where to put the bridge hand down because once down then that's it. Unless you get up you are committed to that line.

It's probably best to get out of the discussion if your only premise is that there is only one way to "aim".

This one is to discuss the merits of the one under discussion. The Mullen Method. Although CTE has sort of been included, the discussion is about the Mullen Method.

 

[dr_dave]

Maybe. Remember that the pivot is a combination of how far you shift the stick sideways plus where your pivot point is (how long your bridge is). So at least one of those things has to change in order to make a different cut angle, and depending on the amount of cut angle change, maybe both of them have to change.

But that isn't CTE as we've heard it described, and I don't think it's a version of CTE that can be easily learned because of the many different combinations of shift and bridge distances that would have to be used. The complexity of a system that would make all the necessary pivoting adjustments for you is what leads to the conclusion that CTE can't possibly be an "exact" system that's easy enough to learn.

That doesn't make it a "bad" system - I don't think a system necessarily has to be "exact" to be useful. It's just not (yet) being described accurately.

Are you saying the pivot point is at your bridge?

It doesn't need to be. You can create any "effective pivot length" you need (for a given cut angle) with a fixed bridge length.

From my CTE resource page:

If using a "mechanical pivot" (i.e., pivoting after placing the bridge hand down), one way to vary the "effective pivot length" is to vary the bridge length (as implied by the diagram). Another is to shift, rotate, tilt, or deform your bridge hand during the pivot as you shift your body (AKA "hip pivot"). Here's an example of this, posted by Colin Colenso, where the "effective pivot length" is much longer than the bridge length:

Another way is to use an "air pivot," where you pivot the cue and/or entire body before placing the bridge hand down. In this case, you can easily create any "effective pivot length" over an extremely wide range. Sometimes, the "effective pivot length" is referred to as the "shot arc." Here is a demonstration of how some forms of pivoting are used in conjunction with CTE and other pivot-based aiming methods: CTE pivot demonstration. For more info concerning pivoting, "air pivot," and "shot arc," see Spidey's blog.

Regards,
Dave

 

[rebound]

That's probably a good idea. Many of us are interested in aiming systems and we like using them and playing around with them.

Regarding statistics no one has any stats regarding methods used vs. actual performance in pool. Pool is a poor sport. We don't have any multi-million dollar testing facilitites dedicated to studying the physical and physiological aspect of playing pool.

So having a lot of the best instructors out there teaching "non-standard" methods of aiming is just a strong testimonial to how much they believe in them over "conventional" methods such as Ghost Ball.

Lastly, all these aiming systems boil down to the same thing, the cue tip pointing at the cueball in a straight line to the object ball.

All of them require some form of judgement to make a decision as to where to put the bridge hand down because once down then that's it. Unless you get up you are committed to that line.

It's probably best to get out of the discussion if your only premise is that there is only one way to "aim".

This one is to discuss the merits of the one under discussion. The Mullen Method. Although CTE has sort of been included, the discussion is about the Mullen Method.

Fair enough. Actually, my premise is that there's only one best way. That's all. Have fun and good luck.

 

[champ2107]

I went out last nite too shoot some stick and tried the 3 shot example using my version of cte and i did my best to not make any adjustments and i could not make the C shot. I kept coming up 2 inches wide right, but i did know i was going to miss it though when i was down on the ball. The last shot i made a slight body adjustment (moved a lil to the left on set up) and made it.

A couple guys i know showed up and wanted to play, so i gave up playing around with it and i also had my vid cam with me too. I am in the middle of learning a different way of shooting cte. When i started playing with one of the guys i was using my version of cte + the new version of cte, im trying to learn + i was trying the ultimate aiming system on shots too. When ever i was about to shoot i didnt no what system i was going to try! good thing there was no $$$ on the games because i missed a lot of shots lol.

 

[peteypooldude]

Smaller balls and pockets are not the only reasons pro snooker players come over and pick up 9-ball and start kicking everyone's ass after they've retired from snooker because they can no longer compete.[/QUOTE] Rebound

This is the part of the post that is ridiculous
Has nothing to do with how one aims.
This statement is false as I pointed out earlier.
Retired snooker players do not beat the top Americans or pinoys.
I dont care how they aim

 

[LAMas]

I went out last nite too shoot some stick and tried the 3 shot example using my version of cte and i did my best to not make any adjustments and i could not make the C shot. I kept coming up 2 inches wide right, but i did know i was going to miss it though when i was down on the ball. The last shot i made a slight body adjustment (moved a lil to the left on set up) and made it.

A couple guys i know showed up and wanted to play, so i gave up playing around with it and i also had my vid cam with me too. I am in the middle of learning a different way of shooting cte. When i started playing with one of the guys i was using my version of cte + the new version of cte, im trying to learn + i was trying the ultimate aiming system on shots too. When ever i was about to shoot i didnt no what system i was going to try! good thing there was no $$$ on the games because i missed a lot of shots lol.

The 3 shot diagram assumes a fixed CB and OB location for each shot with the bridge hand on the rail. With a fixed bridge distance behind the CB, All I am left to adjust is the parallel shift of the cue from the CTE line.

What I understand about a form of CTE is to shift the cue and bridge hand from CTE some parallel distance and the pivot back to the center of the CB - shoot.

The shifts here are to the outside edge of the OB.
The 9 degree shot at the top is a shift of approx 1 1/2 tip or .725".
The 13 degree shot in the middle is a shift of approx one tip or .510"
The 18 degree shot at the bottom is a shift of approx 3/5 tip or .301"

 

[rebound]

Smaller balls and pockets are not the only reasons pro snooker players come over and pick up 9-ball and start kicking everyone's ass after they've retired from snooker because they can no longer compete.

Rebound

This is the part of the post that is ridiculous
Has nothing to do with how one aims.
This statement is false as I pointed out earlier.
Retired snooker players do not beat the top Americans or pinoys.
I dont care how they aim

Really? Are you sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Davis
In 2000, Davis was 43 and he had not won a major snooker tournament since 1997.

"He has taken notable victories in his pool career, including his "shock" winning streak at the 2000 WPA World Nine-ball Championship, where he came back from an 2–8 deficit to take a 9–8 win over then-reigning world champion Efren Reyes, following it up with victories over 1997 world champion Ralf Souquet and 1998 champion Takahashi Kunihiko.[citation needed] He has also become well known for being involved in some of the most dramatic matches in that event's history, including the aforementioned match against Efren Reyes in 2000, Rudolfo Luat in 2002, and a particularly heated encounter with Earl Strickland in 2003."

I would also mention the dominance of British women in 9-ball but you would likely discredit that on the grounds the women aren't as good as the men to begin with.

Look, all I'm saying is that there's no shortcut to success and a solid practice routine is key in the development of a novice into an expert no matter how you learn to aim at the ball. My issue with any "aiming system" is it's rigidity. If you are following a specific set of rules to set up your shot you will run into situations that aren't covered by it. If you instead have to rely on using your judgement to determine if it applies and what exceptions and adjustments have to be made it no longer serves a purpose since just practicing a crapload will work just as well and serve you much better when under pressure.

 

[Robert Raiford]

I think you [Patrick] are getting closer to solving the MYSTERY of why it is not
adding up on paper for some.

I'm pretty sure it's not adding up on paper for anybody. This seems to remain a mystery only to some (Patrick not included).

Robert