Colin Colenso said:
Thanks, Colin. Looking forward to reviewing the ghost-ballers' videos.
Last edited:
diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Thanks, Colin. Looking forward to reviewing the ghost-ballers' videos.
Now I get it!
PJ Thanks for the diagram! Spider thanks for saying that it is perception! I don't claim to be a great player - just someone who works a full time job and wants to play great when I get a chance. At the recomendation of AZ I went to KY in October and learned Pro One from Stan Shuffett. When he showed it to me I didn't understand how it worked I just knew it worked. I also learned that it didn't work all the time for me b/c my stroke was not always straight. I have worked hard on my stroke and am now pocketing more balls than ever. This is not some feel thing - I have only been playing for 2.5 years I still have trouble with speed on shots and have a hard time feeling the SAM aiming method. At this point in my time as a player I may not land exactly where I want, but I have a better chance of making the next ball than I did before. When PJ posted the image in response to Spider saying that your perception of the balls change b/c of distance it finally clicked as to why the system works. When you line up CTE you are making the adjustment that everyone is looking for. The adjustment is the initial line up! If an OB is close to the CB and you line the CB up for a full ball hit on the OB and then look at CTE you are going to be aiming further to the right (on a left cut) than you will if the OB were further down the table. Look at PJ's diagram and think about it. Is this going to make me the next world beater - NO, but now through this discussion I can understand better why it works for ME. I really do appreciate everyones input on this and your initial recommendation. I think everyone is going to be better b/c of this thread - it shows that you trust what works for you and are willing to argue your point to prove it. A little confidence in the fact that your system works for you has never hurt anyone.
Patrick Johnson said:
PJ Thanks for the diagram! Spider thanks for saying that it is perception! I don't claim to be a great player - just someone who works a full time job and wants to play great when I get a chance. At the recomendation of AZ I went to KY in October and learned Pro One from Stan Shuffett. When he showed it to me I didn't understand how it worked I just knew it worked. I also learned that it didn't work all the time for me b/c my stroke was not always straight. I have worked hard on my stroke and am now pocketing more balls than ever. This is not some feel thing - I have only been playing for 2.5 years I still have trouble with speed on shots and have a hard time feeling the SAM aiming method. At this point in my time as a player I may not land exactly where I want, but I have a better chance of making the next ball than I did before. When PJ posted the image in response to Spider saying that your perception of the balls change b/c of distance it finally clicked as to why the system works. When you line up CTE you are making the adjustment that everyone is looking for. The adjustment is the initial line up! If an OB is close to the CB and you line the CB up for a full ball hit on the OB and then look at CTE you are going to be aiming further to the right (on a left cut) than you will if the OB were further down the table. Look at PJ's diagram and think about it. Is this going to make me the next world beater - NO, but now through this discussion I can understand better why it works for ME. I really do appreciate everyones input on this and your initial recommendation. I think everyone is going to be better b/c of this thread - it shows that you trust what works for you and are willing to argue your point to prove it. A little confidence in the fact that your system works for you has never hurt anyone.
Colin Colenso said:
You seem to have picked out a bunch of advantages of these pivot systems. I wonder why PJ won't try them if they have so many advantages? I guess he already plays like God.
ShootingArts said:
I said "2D and 3D views are identical for sighting ball edges." My drawing shows that to be true.
When you sight from the right edge of the CB to the right edge of an OB you're sighting along one line, not two or three. The right edge of a second OB, farther away than the first one, will be on the same straight sight line, as illustrated in my diagram. That's the relevant line when using CTE - the converging lines through the centers or left edges of the balls are irrelevant.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't, Hu. Your statement shows that you misunderstood what I said.
What difference does it make? That's the question. The only specific claim about it has been shown to be wrong by my drawing. What reason do you have that it might make any difference?
So what? You're clutching at straws. That means to me that you're not looking at this objectively; you want a certain outcome. Why?
pj
chgo
Do you think those "advantages" are only available in systems?
Do you think systems don't have disadvantages?
pj
chgo
That just means they're two different shots - they still only go to one target each unless you "fudge" the pivot somehow. Fudging works for you and that's great.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Systems have fewer disadvantages than ghost ball...hence, why I use them.
Looking forward to seeing you upload a video sometime. Stop being a railbird in every discussion and show us how ghost ball works. Upload something.
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
Really? What are some of the disadvantages of ghost ball? And by the way, what is ghost ball by your definition?
Your video was entertaining - you shoot very well. But it didn't teach anybody anything but that. A video of me making the same shots would only show how well I shoot - it wouldn't teach anything about how I do it or whether my method is better or worse than yours.
I don't come here to see people making random shots, but thanks for the diversion. Again, you shoot very well. How's your position play?
pj
chgo
SpiderWebComm said:
Damn fine shooting Dave, regardless if it's the system or you.
I took a lesson with Ron last week and haven't been at the table since. I need to go practice some more as this video has inspired me. Could you tell me which pivot you used for each of your shots?
Thanks. 95% potting rate is no joke~:thumbup:
You can do many of these things without using CTE or 90/90, but those systems tend to encourage the factors I mentioned.SpiderWebComm said:
I use a most of these because I use BHE a lot and hence I try very hard to pre-align accurately and often test myself by not looking at the OB during the stroke. Swoop potting / aiming is like cancer to BHE.
FWIW: I also encourage PJ and others to try out some CTE and 90/90. If they can't follow other directions they could perhaps do it in the way I have suggested.
i.e.
CTE method.
1. Stare down the CTE line with the cue tip to the left.
2. Slide your bridge and tip into postion picturing the line of aim relative to the CTE line.
3. Bring the tip up to center CB on this line of aim. The CTE line is in your peripheral vision.
4. Shoot straight. -use natural follow for consistant CIT. (A soft stun can cause you to miss the shot).
90/90 or Edge to Edge.
1. Lay cue tip on table in line with the edges of the CB and OB. Hold the butt end of the cue with your back hand.
2. Roughly estimate the line of aim you'll need from the standing position.
3. Slide into the bridge position pivoting where it feels right to this line of aim or cue line. This pivot can be in the air and while you're sliding your bridge, so effectively, the pivot doesn't need to be right at the bridge. It is often nearer the center and even back of the cue. You may need to shift the hip or feet slightly to get into position.
4. In the last inch or two moving toward the center CB lock in to the line of aim that feels right. Keep the ETE line in your peripheral vision during these processes.
6. Shoot. (As above)
1. Stare down the CTE line with the cue tip to the left.
2. Slide your bridge and tip into postion picturing the line of aim relative to the CTE line.
3. Bring the tip up to center CB on this line of aim. The CTE line is in your peripheral vision.
4. Shoot straight. -use natural follow for consistant CIT. (A soft stun can cause you to miss the shot).
90/90 or Edge to Edge.
1. Lay cue tip on table in line with the edges of the CB and OB. Hold the butt end of the cue with your back hand.
2. Roughly estimate the line of aim you'll need from the standing position.
3. Slide into the bridge position pivoting where it feels right to this line of aim or cue line. This pivot can be in the air and while you're sliding your bridge, so effectively, the pivot doesn't need to be right at the bridge. It is often nearer the center and even back of the cue. You may need to shift the hip or feet slightly to get into position.
4. In the last inch or two moving toward the center CB lock in to the line of aim that feels right. Keep the ETE line in your peripheral vision during these processes.
6. Shoot. (As above)
I know this is not highly systematic, nor is it how these systems are usually taught, but it is a way that can help people to get a feel of how point to point aiming seems to help a player perceive the line of aim.
I'm interested to know if doing this helps others to perceive the line of aim, compared to using Ghost Ball, Overlap, Fractional Aiming, Contact Point Staring, Double-the-Distance, Clock System, OB to Pocket or any other method of imagery that can be used to perceive the required line of aim. (LOA)
I recommend this because when I just follow the standard advice, I never know where to pivot from, so if I pivot from a set bridge I miss most the shots, just how the geometry suggests.
Colin
Last edited:
All I know is that I got verbally beat to hell after I "came out" gushing about Hal's systems on RSB. (I didn't have a clue that there was already so much conflict over them before I met Hal). I had skipped all of the aiming threads belieiving that I didn't need them.
I met Hal at the request of Bob Johnson in Denver. What he showed me clicked and amazed me.
I gushed about it on line and got verbally bashed by Lou Figuera (sp). and Deno Andrews. Then in Chicago at the RSB tournament I beat Deno Andrews in 9 Ball and Lou in One Pocket using Hal's system. Both Deno and Lou are much better players, much more accomplished and yet I was able to win on semi-tough equipment. Granted it was short sets, 7 in 9 Ball and 3 in One Pocket but I did it and I think it was due to the fact that I was pocketing balls better using Hal's systems.
Now, 7 years later we are still arguing about the systems but I think that we are coming much closer than when Lou and Deno bashed me for using "the force".
Although, like San Jose Dick, the math is over my head and the physics lingo wrecks my game because I am thinking about when I play, I KNOW that there is merit to these systems and I will rejoice when the math and science guys figure it out and give people like Hal Houle and Ron V. and others who teach these things their due.
I met Hal at the request of Bob Johnson in Denver. What he showed me clicked and amazed me.
I gushed about it on line and got verbally bashed by Lou Figuera (sp). and Deno Andrews. Then in Chicago at the RSB tournament I beat Deno Andrews in 9 Ball and Lou in One Pocket using Hal's system. Both Deno and Lou are much better players, much more accomplished and yet I was able to win on semi-tough equipment. Granted it was short sets, 7 in 9 Ball and 3 in One Pocket but I did it and I think it was due to the fact that I was pocketing balls better using Hal's systems.
Now, 7 years later we are still arguing about the systems but I think that we are coming much closer than when Lou and Deno bashed me for using "the force".
Although, like San Jose Dick, the math is over my head and the physics lingo wrecks my game because I am thinking about when I play, I KNOW that there is merit to these systems and I will rejoice when the math and science guys figure it out and give people like Hal Houle and Ron V. and others who teach these things their due.
I agree PJ,Patrick Johnson said:
Perspective issues can have effects, such as maybe making us hit thin cuts too thin if we are aiming to a center of a CB ghost we're perceiving as being bigger than it should be.
But these effects are pretty small and our brain tends to work them out. They cannot explain how a CTE pivot can make you cut a ball at 15 and 60 degrees. A long shot can be a thin or thick cut. So can shots where the CB is close to the OB. Perspective wouldn't achive the same result on closer shots if it really was the mechanism.
It's good to use a process of elimination to explain the whys and hows, but the 2D v 3D perspective issue is just a red herring. It's clutching at straws.
Colin ~ In the mood for cliche's
At least we seem to be past the 'there's 6 pockets so only 6 lines' type of analysis.JB Cases said:
I doubt there can ever be a solution that doesn't involve intuitive adjustment as a significant component. But if these methods tend to turn out better potters then people will soon enough flock to learning and teaching these methods, especially if a few of sharp shooting high level pros start trumpeting these methods.
Colin
Patrick Johnson said:
If you ever run into me, don't be shy. You can find out
Patrick Johnson said:
Major Disadvantage:
1) Very hard to see since it's a frickin' make-believe ball
2) Not as repeatable in setup or preshot routine, accurately
3) Extremely tough to figure back-cuts
What is ghost ball? Stop asking retarded questions.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to seeing you post a video so we can see how PJ pockets balls. I question if you're qualified to even determine pros/cons of either if you can't even play.
DR. D. you make a good point in saying you have to make adjustments for a wide range of shots. The 90-90 pivot that Ron is teaching works ONLY for half ball aim up to but not including straight in shots. If the shot is straight in or you are aiming more than half ball then there are different initial aiming points. I hope what I said is clear and helpful.
I, also, would like to see this stay on topic and civil. You do a great service to the billiards community with your articles.
I, also, would like to see this stay on topic and civil. You do a great service to the billiards community with your articles.
Ah, I remember. You were John Collins back then...JB Cases said:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....hal+group:rec.sport.billiard#f86054802071cf0a
You always have been a better player than Deno on a game with pockets.
The cash in my pocket says you still get 9-7 from Lou.
BORING!!!!!!!Patrick Johnson said:
Qualifications PJ what are yours. you've stated you won't even try systems!!!Patrick Johnson said:
AS with any lesson you've been told how to do it, you've been shown how to do it, how about doing it on video and maybe we can help you learn what you might be doing wrong!!!