I never saw it. Can you post the link?
Ferrule and Tip Aiming System
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
I never saw it. Can you post the link?
Spider Dave I did your 5 shots, which is really 1 shot at different distances. I had to pivot from left edge of ferrule to right edge to pocket balls. Some went in, some didn't. Seems to work OK I guess, prolly a lot better with practice. However, I really didn't like that I was putting left english on everything. Is that correct? I mean if I line up the left edge center to center, that is right english. Then I use backhand english to point the right edge at ccb. When I stroke in that same direction through the cue ball I put left english on the cb.
I assume for any angle on the table, I could aim at say half ball hit and use the ferrule left or right to feather the angle to make the ball go, but what's the overall point you are making with this exercise?
I assume for any angle on the table, I could aim at say half ball hit and use the ferrule left or right to feather the angle to make the ball go, but what's the overall point you are making with this exercise?
Well, upon closer reading, I suppose they are not as similar as I thought. I think the system was taken down, as I have not been able to find it.
If I remember correctly, and forgive me if I'm slightly off, because I experimented a lot with it and created my own alignments, there were three tip alignments. Ferrule edge to center cueball (before pivot), 1 full tip out before pivot and 2 full tips out before pivot. And you could use center cueball object ball aim, half ball and maybe quarter ball, though I might have added that myself. I kind of like to experiment like that. Anyway I got it to work pretty well, so it couldn't have been all wrong.
Shane also said he aims different PARTS of the shaft depending on the shot.
And different shafts have different parts to aim.
He also mentioned the contact point.
~ Thinks Shane is pulling a fast one on all who believe him~
I can see people spending hours and hours trying to do it.
And different shafts have different parts to aim.
He also mentioned the contact point.
~ Thinks Shane is pulling a fast one on all who believe him~
I can see people spending hours and hours trying to do it.
Shane also said he aims different PARTS of the shaft depending on the shot.
And different shafts have different parts to aim.
He also mentioned the contact point.
~ Thinks Shane is pulling a fast one on all who believe him~
I can see people spending hours and hours trying to do it.
I think it's completely possible that he is teling the truth. I just know that for me, doing what he says he's doing is impossible. I think maybe my left eye (which is weaker) interferes when I try to focus on a small area of the tip, it completely throws my lines off. If I was to use this system, I'd have to keep my left eye closed and aim like a rifle, it would still be tough to keep a sharp focus on both areas even switching back and forth. You need good, strong eyes, and maybe young eyes as well.
I have a friend who plays snooker with one eye shut. He makes century breaks regularly, so it's completely possible to play that way, though somewhat unusual.
Last edited:
What point am I trying to make with this exercise? It's not a POINT. It's the initial baby steps for learning a new and different aiming system with 3 parts of the tip/ferrule to the center of the OB and 2 other areas. Nothing more, nothing less.
Obviously even with the same angles that you claim exist, you still missed some shots along with making them. If they're the exact same angle you should have made the ones you missed along with the ones you made.
Must be a faulty stroke.
Here's two things you can do. Stop using it immediately because it's not for you.
Keep working on the stroke for another 10 years and come back to see me when you have it all straightened out.
Shane also said he aims different PARTS of the shaft depending on the shot.
And different shafts have different parts to aim.
He also mentioned the contact point.
~ Thinks Shane is pulling a fast one on all who believe him~
I can see people spending hours and hours trying to do it.
Shane isn't pulling a fast one. He's discussed it often enough and directly to Johnny Archer when both of them were comparing their aiming systems
What he doesn't ever do is go into greater detail regarding the intricacies of all the starting tip positions as far as center CB, 1/2 tip offset, full tip offset when using English and how it's then linked to the contact point.
It would work easier when setting up on the outside of the CB because throw helps out. When setting up on the inside, I can see where he has problems aiming to the contact point when everything is parallel.
Shane also said he aims different PARTS of the shaft depending on the shot.
And different shafts have different parts to aim.
He also mentioned the contact point.
~ Thinks Shane is pulling a fast one on all who believe him~
I can see people spending hours and hours trying to do it.
When I finish my pivot using a 15 visual the center of the shaft is pointing at the contact point. After pivot on a 30 visual the edge of the shaft is pointing at it. I use Shane's method to double check my system. So why pivot? Because I can use the same technique to make 45, 60, and 75 visuals where Shane's system doesn't work.
Is this always true for a standard 15 or 30 visual? If so, when do you adjust for a thick or thin shot? I mean, is it something you just recognize before the pivot, and therefore adjust the pivot, or is it something you recognize after you are already down and have arrived at CCB?
It was something I came to recognize after I found out about Shane's system. When I first started pivoting I would miss some shots if I looked at the OB so I concentrated on hitting through CCB. After some practice I noticed that the tip was pointed at the CP after a 15 visual. Hmm.. that's was interesting. After I stumbled on Shane's system I noticed the edge alignment after a 30 visual. Hmmm.... again. Now it's my double check to make sure my pivots are true. That gives me confidence the pivots for the other visuals should work as advertised.
Not sure what you mean about adjusting for thick or thin shots. My pivots are consistent for visuals to 60. After that the pivot is reduced in half due to the shrinking OB real estate left.
It was something I came to recognize after I found out about Shane's system. When I first started pivoting I would miss some shots if I looked at the OB so I concentrated on hitting through CCB. After some practice I noticed that the tip was pointed at the CP after a 15 visual. Hmm.. that's was interesting. After I stumbled on Shane's system I noticed the edge alignment after a 30 visual. Hmmm.... again. Now it's my double check to make sure my pivots are true. That gives me confidence the pivots for the other visuals should work as advertised.
Not sure what you mean about adjusting for thick or thin shots. My pivots are consistent for visuals to 60. After that the pivot is reduced in half due to the shrinking OB real estate left.
Nice discoveries. It always pays to pay attention to what's going on. My question for thick or thin is just a curious probe into the workings of different visual "perceptions", like the 15 and 30. How most CTE users say that after a while they can use just those two visuals to make a varying array of cut shots. Just trying to understand....if your cue tip always points to the contact point on a 15 visual pivot, wouldn't that always produce the same shot angle? I thought maybe that's where the thick or thin (outside or inside pivot or sweep) came I to play.
If you pivot and readjust it will. If you pivot without realigning to the new direction the cue will appear to be pointed at the cp but the actual direction of the cue will vary slightly because your head hasn't moved. I think that's what is meant by perception shift.
Relax, Dave. You said in another thread that you were going to bring up a new subject, which is this thread. I'm trying to stay on topic.
First you proposed shooting into the corner pocket while increasing the straight in line to upwards of 1 diamond. Then you standardized the shots #1 through #5. I assumed you wanted us to also do as in your first instruction and shoot each shot at greater angles until we missed, which is what I did. Like I said, some went in, some didn't. It was clear that anything more than a shallow angle was not going to go in.
You did not really specify that your goal in this thread was to introduce a Shane/pivot hybrid aiming method. It seemed more like, "OK, do this first and then I'll show you the next part." Even Vorpal made mention that we should wait and see where you are going with this discussion.
So, back to the point. My greatest observation from these shots is that I am putting a pretty good amount of left english on the cue ball. I am lining up left ferrule with cb/ob center and then backhand pivoting to right edge ferrule. Is this normal or am I doing something wrong? As a side note, if you get different results with a LD shaft, this is probably why. Pivoting will produce spin left or right and squirt right or left. LD shafts, of course will change where the cb goes. Maybe that's your issue.
Cut angles between 0 and 15* are made using the same visual. If I move the CB from a 0 to a 7* cut, the cue tip is still pointing at the CP after the pivot. For 15 - 30* cuts the edge is after the pivot. I just went to the table and did a 30 perspective on a 12*ish shot and neither tip position looked close. Then did a 15 perspective on a 20*ish shot and it was obvious that it would hit the rail.
He really aims different parts of the shaft to the object ball?
I have the DVD ( won in a raffle here ) .
Someone wanted to kill me when I tried doing it and mentioned the contact point. This was before the dvd came out and there was some talk Shane was aiming the ferrule to the ob.
He says the contact points aren't in the equation.
Then voila, the dvd came out. Shane mentions the contact point.
And I'm really not sure if he actually means the aiming line or contact point.
He says different shafts have different aiming references ( in essence ).
Let's say he is not pulling a fast one.
How does your eye pick a spot in the shaft in relation to a spot in the ob ?
Sorry, I think Shane is having a ball.
I'll believe what he's saying when someone records his eye pattern that shows him looking at the shaft.
In BOLD.
You shoot thru the cue ball like its not even there. Either the middle, left or right sides of the shaft would be pointed at the contact point on the OB while staying as close to the vertical line of the cue ball (mass) as possible. Once outside a center ball hit then you start adding small shaft widths off of the vertical line of the cue ball to the shot. Could be anywhere from 1/8 of the cue shaft to 2 full cue shafts.
This is all done while in the standing position behind the cue ball, then when you come down into the shooting position you fine tune your shaft alignment. There is no pivoting involved.
I tried to explain this system once to a new student of the game. Using an imaginary cue ball and putting some ball on the table I asked her to get down in the shooting position and ether use the middle, left or right sides of the shaft and point the cue at the contact point on the OB. Well, all I got was the "deer look into the headlights" look.
I have been doing this probably before Shane was even born. Using this style of shooting means that any spin put on the cue ball must be parallel and finish with the shot line. Working within the mass of the cue ball which, to me, is about the size of a quarter.
Since working with Tuck and Roll (helping spin) for the last 2 months it's been difficult to stay away from my cue finishing parallel to the shot line when applying spin.
I'm not trying to break a habit, I'm trying the learn a new skill............takes time.
Nice thread Dave. And thanks for the advise.
John
Last edited:
Here you go.
Attachments
Agreed, I'm sure he doesn't pivot either.
I'm wondering how well his aiming system would pair with Poolology. I haven't tried either yet, but they seem to compliment each other.
From what I gather, Poolology gives a very precise method of determining what fractional overlap is correct to make the ball.
I like shaft aiming, but I feel like Shane's method has too many gaps, that the video kind of glazes over for the sake of making the system sound simple.
It would be nice to smooth out his categories, even if they involve more categories, and pairing them up with their correct angle values.
Combining that with poolology would seem pretty sweet, if you knew what they exact values were for his center shaft, vs 1/3, vs 1/4 vs full edge alignments.
Maybe using Center OB, 1/3, 3/4, 1/2 ball and Edge of OB, and using the shaft alignments to fill in all the in between angles.
Maybe even solely using Center. 3/4, 1/2 and Edge while bringing in the other edge of the shaft depending on whether you want to thicken the shot or thin it.
For example. He uses Edge of Shaft to a hair outside of edge of ball for a really thin cut.
Say on all slight angle left cuts, you still point at the 3/4 mark, but with different parts of the shaft. Use the left if you want to thin it more, use the right if you want to thicken it more.
I like shane's idea, but it bugs me that you can't determine which category to use, other than trial and error.