I stand by Spidey.
P.S. What exactly does "automatically adjust" suppose to mean?
Experience or science?
- Thread starter Bob Callahan
- Start date
P.S. What exactly does "automatically adjust" suppose to mean?
You must have been out to lunch that day. Several people, including some of those you mentioned said it doesn't work. I'm done with this crap.
Why is that?
As long as "experience" stays away from the business of attempting to explain exactly how something works, then for the purposes of improving my pool game I'd MUCH rather listen to a proven champion than a PhD.
There are some "science guys" who think that cinching balls with OE is actually the wrong thing to do in almost all cases...because the physics and math say so. But when you see practically all of the pros contradict this claim and you yourself subconsciously doing it over time as you become a more mature, experienced, and overall better player, then do you really care what science says?
There are some "science guys" who think that cinching balls with OE is actually the wrong thing to do in almost all cases...because the physics and math say so. But when you see practically all of the pros contradict this claim and you yourself subconsciously doing it over time as you become a more mature, experienced, and overall better player, then do you really care what science says?
Wrong, at least in my case (I can't say the same for others), was in reference to one poster falsely paraphrasing other posters. In this case, he was indeed wrong.
Ok, so you are saying that it works because it is geometrically accurate, meaning that it can aim at any of an infinite number of angles without feel. Prove it. Until then, that claim is unsubstantiated.
Using feel, intuition, etc. to get it on the correct line as opposed to the close line.
They might have said it doesn't work in the way described, which is true, but nobody denies that you can pocket balls with the system, which would be the equivalent of "it doesn't work".
Sorry for helping to run this thread off track, but its best to speak up when you or others are falsely accused.
Low deflection shafts help provided you can adjust to them. I don't use one personally, but it helps immensly the farther you get from the object ball.
Experience can lead one to believe they can do a 1/2 ball hit.
In science, there is no 1/2 ball hit.
In science, there is only one area on the OB that can be hit to make it go where you want to. The CB angle to the OB does not change this, but does change what you are seeing. You see a what appears to be a 1/2 ball hit, but in reality it is not.
There are no 1/4,1/2 ball nor thin or thick hits.
So what one is experiencing is not what is always really happening but which explains why some will believe something works when there are no facts to back it up.
In science, there is no 1/2 ball hit.
In science, there is only one area on the OB that can be hit to make it go where you want to. The CB angle to the OB does not change this, but does change what you are seeing. You see a what appears to be a 1/2 ball hit, but in reality it is not.
There are no 1/4,1/2 ball nor thin or thick hits.
So what one is experiencing is not what is always really happening but which explains why some will believe something works when there are no facts to back it up.
Prove it you say, come watch me or numerous other's play. I will perform cte step by step and drill balls in center pocket. By the way, I know this won't be good enough for you. In the end all you have is your opinion, and that is unsubstantiated, I have an aiming system that pockets balls.
LONG LIVE CTE.
Those claims about CTE being geometrically perfect are unsubstantiated. This is not opinion, this is fact. If you want to make a point draw out some math, until then, you have nothing to stand on.
Like I said, fractional aiming systems can also pocket balls all day long, they are not continuous as CTE was claimed to be and don't claim to be. So being able to make balls with your system doesn't necessarily make exaggerated claims the truth, thus unsubtantiated.
Last edited:
When you're right, you're right! :thumbup:
We'll lift the BIG BLUE FONT curse due to your change in opinion!
Best,
Mike
Lol, sorry screwed up. I fixed it.
You don't have to apologize. I was just going to pm you for your hat size. We're all switching to aluminum due to its availability. :wink:
Best,
Mike
Last edited:
Aluminum hats only increase deflection, you should probably switch to a Kamui hat to avoid miscues.
It's funny how clueless people keep posting about things they know nothing about, buy a dog, name him clue, so you'll have one.
Its funny that you think ad hominem attacks, avoiding issues, and using insults that a junior high school student might find amusing is helpful to your cause.
Last edited:
Is this scientific?
Back to science that can be diagrammed and universal.
This is using stick aiming from contact point (CP) on the OB to the CP on the CB. This assumes that the shooter can visualize the CPs
Normally in 90 to reverse 90 aiming, one has his cue pointed at the center of the CB aimed at the center of the OB to start and then with visualization one adjust his stance to where he visualizes the CP on the OB in line with the CP on the CB - shoot.
Using this stick aiming, one uses his cue (stick) aimed through the CB to the CP on the CB to the CP on the OB (not at the center of the CB) - for all cut angles.
The next step is to Parallel shift the cue to the center of the CB and shoots.
This works for all separations between the CB and OB.
Here is a quick sketch:
The rub is that the parallel shift must be exact - like on paper.
Also a bit of outside english helps to effect "gearing".
Just asking.:wink::thumbup:
Back to science that can be diagrammed and universal.
This is using stick aiming from contact point (CP) on the OB to the CP on the CB. This assumes that the shooter can visualize the CPs
Normally in 90 to reverse 90 aiming, one has his cue pointed at the center of the CB aimed at the center of the OB to start and then with visualization one adjust his stance to where he visualizes the CP on the OB in line with the CP on the CB - shoot.
Using this stick aiming, one uses his cue (stick) aimed through the CB to the CP on the CB to the CP on the OB (not at the center of the CB) - for all cut angles.
The next step is to Parallel shift the cue to the center of the CB and shoots.
This works for all separations between the CB and OB.
Here is a quick sketch:
The rub is that the parallel shift must be exact - like on paper.
Also a bit of outside english helps to effect "gearing".
Just asking.:wink::thumbup:
Last edited:
Now you're talking! That's contact-point-to-contact-point aiming -- geometrically sound for all shots (without english).
It can be done in the two-step the way you diagrammed and described. Or, you can simply visualize the line or vertical plane running through the two contact points and align the cue stick through CB center, parallel to that plane or line, without initially placing the stick in the CP-to-CP plane.
If you test how it works on the pool table in a controlled setting it is science. If you are asking about just the diagram, it is geometry, which is technically a subdivision of math, not science, but at least it is correct.
Last edited: