Contact Point v Contact Patch

[mohrt]

You've just put a parameter on it that would make it seem objective but it is reality not.

If we stand side by side we will NOT see the same 'edge' point on the ball. We will see different subjective 'edge' points.

If we stand side by side & look at the right upper corner of a light switch we will both see the same objective right upper corner of the light switch.

That right upper corner of the light switch is an objective point that can be seen from all different subjective vantages.

This might be of use. You are stating that objectivity involves a concrete physical point, such as the corner of a light switch plate. In the context of CTE the objectivity is of the perception, not a physical point. If you think of 360 "ticks" around the equator of a ball and look at it from a fixed eye location, you see two edges, call them ticks 0 and 180. Move your head slightly over and now you are viewing ticks 1 and 181. And so on. Every fixed eye position has a unique physical alignment, but the perception is always aligned in the same manner. In the context of CTE, this is "objective". Objective meaning observable, understandable, repeatable. Not physical tangible points or planes. Maybe this is one crux of the vernacular that creates more arguments than it does to be productive. At least for some groups of thinkers. Others just accept it for what it is and move forward.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I wasn't referring to the "more consistent" part of his statements.... I agree that the pros are.
The statement made was.. the pros don't really know more, they are just more consistent.

I meant to say that he's full of BS if he thinks the pros don't know more than duckie.... Aflac!
.

To be honest, I think people in the aiming forum know more about aiming systems than the pros do. The pros do not have to try different systems because whatever they are already doing works for them.

Any good aiming system will get the player to the correct aim point on the object ball. People learn and see things differently so they should choose whichever method brings them to the correct place to pocket the ball.

I think I have the most success when I visualize the place where the cue ball is when contacting the object ball.

 

[ENGLISH!]

This might be of use. You are stating that objectivity involves a concrete physical point, such as the corner of a light switch plate. In the context of CTE the objectivity is of the perception, not a physical point. If you think of 360 "ticks" around the equator of a ball and look at it from a fixed eye location, you see two edges, call them ticks 0 and 180. Move your head slightly over and now you are viewing ticks 1 and 181. And so on. Every fixed eye position has a unique physical alignment, but the perception is always aligned in the same manner. In the context of CTE, this is "objective". Objective meaning observable, understandable, repeatable. Not physical tangible points or planes. Maybe this is one crux of the vernacular that creates more arguments than it does to be productive. At least for some groups of thinkers. Others just accept it for what it is and move forward.

Please check your PMs.

 

[GaryB]

At one time,before CTE, Hal not only taught aiming with the edge he also taught a aiming system with using the 1/4 CB as the actual contact point on the OB. Except, of course, with straight in shots. Alignment was key with both systems and it was different with each system.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

At one time,before CTE, Hal not only taught aiming with the edge he also taught a aiming system with using the 1/4 CB as the actual contact point on the OB. Except, of course, with straight in shots. Alignment was key with both systems and it was different with each system.

"The Piece" was aligned to OB targets... edges and quarters. To the best of my knowledge, Hal never aimed at a contact point as he didn't believe they could be identified accurately.

 

[ENGLISH!]

"The Piece" was aligned to OB targets... edges and quarters. To the best of my knowledge, Hal never aimed at a contact point as he didn't believe they could be identified accurately.

Dave,

I don't think GaryB was saying that Hal taught to aim at contact points.

It seems, to me, that GaryB was saying that Hal was teaching to use 1/4 of the cue ball as the alignment to perhaps different sections of the object ball.

But, like Dennis Miller, seems to say so often, I could be wrong.

Best,
Rick

 

[stan shuffett]

CCB is the absolute target in the purest form of CTE.

But the advantages of CTE go well beyond the eyes and tip at center cue ball.

It is a hugely important for any CTE player to gain knowledge and awareness of how they are sighting their shots while in full stance

1. Traditionally, straight down the cue
Or
2. With an angled cue, meaning the eyes are not sighting 100% down the shaft.

When playing with an angled or pivoted cue there is important perceptual awarenesses that can learned that go way past the basic CTE center cue ball.

Stan Shuffett

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave,

I don't think GaryB was saying that Hal taught to aim at contact points.

It seems, to me, that GaryB was saying that Hal was teaching to use 1/4 of the cue ball as the alignment to perhaps different sections of the object ball.

But, like Dennis Miller, seems to say so often, I could be wrong.

Best,
Rick

I knew what Gary was saying, was just trying to clarify for others who were curious.

 

[GaryB]

English was right in his interpretation. Remember this was while Hal was still living in Garden Grove in So. Calif. His business card read "Colliding Spheres." He was teaching fractional aiming using the edges and the quarters on the OB accompanied by the systems mentioned in my previous post. When CTE evolved he had lived in Burlingame in No. Calif for several years before moving to Pa. Hal was always thinking and evolving. Spidey and the others who made frequent pilgrimages to Hal's home in Pa knew him better than I and Hal's pool mind was different than when I knew him. The only thing that remained the same was that he was always a giving person and a gentleman. But that is absolutely what he taught at that time. Also remember that different alignments give different perceptions and that the word "perception" is used frequently in explaining CTE. Once again let me reiterate that this is what Hal taught during those years I referred to and not what he was teaching in his later years.

I believe in CTE but I can't explain why it works. The same as I can't explain how people go from an upright position and bend down several feet and land on the table within 6 1/2 mm of their target while making a visual (perception?)sweep.

I was initially telling how it once was and not what it became

Thanks for your patience.

 

[stan shuffett]

Hal told me that he began his work with CTE in 1940. He told me that he declared his CTE study complete in about 1950.

One thing is certain from my experiences with Hal is that he never put it all out there together and he never intended to lay it all out there.

Hal NEVER tied his so-called quarters document with CTE and pivoting. When I put the 3 together in 2009/10, Hal confirmed to Spidey that that was in fact CTE, the CTE he used. He went on to discuss in some detail with Spidey as to that was how his muti-rail banks were solved and made.

This was all confirmed at the time of my DVD1 release.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JoeyInCali]

English was right in his interpretation. Remember this was while Hal was still living in Garden Grove in So. Calif. His business card read "Colliding Spheres." He was teaching fractional aiming using the edges and the quarters on the OB accompanied by the systems mentioned in my previous post. When CTE evolved he had lived in Burlingame in No. Calif for several years before moving to Pa. Hal was always thinking and evolving. Spidey and the others who made frequent pilgrimages to Hal's home in Pa knew him better than I and Hal's pool mind was different than when I knew him. The only thing that remained the same was that he was always a giving person and a gentleman. But that is absolutely what he taught at that time. Also remember that different alignments give different perceptions and that the word "perception" is used frequently in explaining CTE. Once again let me reiterate that this is what Hal taught during those years I referred to and not what he was teaching in his later years.

I believe in CTE but I can't explain why it works. The same as I can't explain how people go from an upright position and bend down several feet and land on the table within 6 1/2 mm of their target while making a visual (perception?)sweep.

I was initially telling how it once was and not what it became

Thanks for your patience.

I thought Colliding Spheres was Robert McColough's .
I saw one of his cards at Best Billiards eons ago.
He hung out at HT once in a while then. Even worked with Robind Dodson iirc.
He and Larry Bohn were teaching side of the cueball aiming system.
So was another gentleman named Marvin. He walked around with an illustrated instructions on side of the cueball aiming system.
None involved pivoting as far as I know.

 

[GaryB]

I had one of Hal's cards for years. In the late 80's & early 90's Hal was not teaching any pivots just different alignments for each of the 2 systems I mentioned.

Joey remember when we called Hal to find out more about CTE? We were on your table and had Hal on speaker phone but there were no fabrics to deaden the sound of the balls on the table "colliding" and the sound hurt Hal's ears. We weren't understanding too well and every time we hit a ball Hal said "owwww!" Finally we had to say we would try some other time. It was funny and sad at the same time.

 

[stan shuffett]

I had one of Hal's cards for years. In the late 80's & early 90's Hal was not teaching any pivots just different alignments for each of the 2 systems I mentioned.

EXACTLY: Just like in Hal's document.....there was no mention of pivoting or CTE....ALL that the document does is present alignments.. The system as presented in his document will not work without pivoting and CTE. Hal knew that!!

Hal also knew that pivoting could and would occur naturally from his alignments if a person did not get in the way of their self.

Stan Shuffett

 

[GaryB]

I totally agree Stan. I know that using the system and the alignment Hal showed me, which at the time seemed to me to be somewhat unnatural, I hardly missed a ball in three weeks. My wife and I had an emergency and had to go to Germany for 6 weeks. When we came back and I finally got on a table I had lost that slight adjustment in alignment and couldn't get in a groove. Hal in the meantime had moved up north to Burlingame by San Francisco. I think that adjustment in alignment was the equivalent of the "pivot." I may be wrong. But I do know that those 3 weeks were the most satisfying of my pool life.