Greyghosts aiming method.......come step into the darkness

[Patrick Johnson]

Grey Ghost:
4 is right

If 4 is right, then 3 is wrong. They can't both be right.

take crappy pics you can hack up to make something look incorrect....

Believe whatever gets you through the night, Keeb.

I don't think pretending these random visual references are a "system" is best for the long term development of your game, but it's your game - you'll do what you want with it. Maybe someone without an investment in the idea will get some benefit from knowing the reality of this.

pj
chgo

 

[houmatroy]

My lil buddy never tried to sell this system as fact...Either try it & say it didnt' help your game or try it & say it did..No need for all the other B/S....That's what's wrong with this site when people are legitamently trying to post a thread that might help others...The attackers can't wait to chime in like it's myth busters or something...Get real people !

 

[Ratta]

My lil buddy never tried to sell this system as fact...Either try it & say it didnt' help your game or try it & say it did..No need for all the other B/S....That's what's wrong with this site when people are legitamently trying to post a thread that might help others...The attackers can't wait to chime in like it's myth busters or something...Get real people !

They are just *humans* ^^ the best explanation imo

 

[JB Cases]

1. Because the same method doesn't work on two tables that are lit differently.

If one were to know how to adjust for different table conditions then it's possible that it could work. After all the diamond system also does not always work the same on different tables either.

2. Because even on the same table, with the OB in the same place, shooting into the same pocket, the shadow(s) only line up correctly for one shot angle - every other shot angle is wrong.

So you say. But I'd guess that since you are already predisposed to thinking that it doesn't work then perhaps you are missing something that Greyghost is doing that makes it work for him.

I'm frankly surprised at how many people don't immediately see these obvious problems before trying this method. It seems to me that those who like these "systems" (CTE, lights, shadows, etc., etc.) share a difficulty in visualizing 3-dimensional spatial relationships. John, no offense, but you've demonstrated this in spades.

I am not sure how I've demonstrated this. Seems like you prefer to say things like that without any grounds. I am sure that I can play as well as you can Pat, in fact I know I can. I can use the ghost ball just fine if I choose to.

Frankly I haven't even considered any "problems" with this method. When I have time I will play around with it and see how I feel about it.

Why is it that you must immediately discount everything that doesn't reduce to Ghost Ball?

I will repeat your same experiment but with some chalk lines going from the pocket to the ball and through the contact point on the back of the ball. I will move the cue ball around and take pictures and that will tell me if it works well enough to use or not.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
...the same method doesn't work on two tables that are lit differently.

JB:
...the diamond system also does not always work the same on different tables either.

This shows yet again that you're incapable of spatial visualization or reasoning, John. Rails and diamonds are always in the same places and in the same spatial relationships. These shadows are in different places on different tables. The fact that this difference doesn't immediately leap out at you means you're a fish out of water in these conversations.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

My lil buddy never tried to sell this system as fact...Either try it & say it didnt' help your game or try it & say it did..No need for all the other B/S....That's what's wrong with this site when people are legitamently trying to post a thread that might help others...The attackers can't wait to chime in like it's myth busters or something...Get real people !

Getting real is the point. This method was described in a way that simply isn't factual. Don't you think it will be most helpful if it's described accurately?

pj
chgo

 

[greyghost]

Getting real is the point. This method was described in a way that simply isn't factual. Don't you think it will be most helpful if it's described accurately?

pj
chgo

My second explanation on page 4 is the full version, like i said a monkey can make balls using those directions, but i guess a dog can't......it is helpful, you just haven't had the bawls to go out and actually try and make them using it........do you even play pool patrick...b/c all i've ever seen you do is argue over aiming threads......i've never even seen or read evidence that you have ever once tried anything you have bashed.....

If the sky is blue and PJ's meter says its red then it must be orange then.....even tho he doesn't bother to look out the f*king window to see with his OWN EYES

-Grey Ghost-

 

[JB Cases]

This shows yet again that you're incapable of spatial visualization or reasoning, John. Rails and diamonds are always in the same places and in the same spatial relationships. These shadows are in different places on different tables. The fact that this difference doesn't immediately leap out at you means you're a fish out of water in these conversations.

pj
chgo

Let me see if I go very slowly if you can get my meaning.

Table A has three lights at 40" off the table. Table B has three lights at 30" off the table.

On both tables the object ball sits on the rack spot.

On table A the light casts a shadow a certain way.

On table B the light casts a shadow a slightly different way.

If the system or method works on Table A then it stands to reason that it's POSSIBLE to adjust SLIGHTLY to account for the SLIGHTLY different way that the shadow is cast on table B.

BECAUSE - the shadows on the balls will be consistent to each table just as the diamonds, rails and pockets are.

Once again, because you missed it the first time, although the diamonds are all in the same place on the rails the DIAMOND SYSTEM does not work as printed on every table with adjusting for the reaction of the cushions and the speed of the cloth. Do you deny this?

Therefore the COMPARISON is that IF the Shadows method does work to whatever degree then it's THEORETICALLY possible that it works on ALL tables when adjusted for differing light sources, i.e. different shadows.

Now I know that you THINK you know everything that there is to know about pool. So you will certainly understand that it took Kelly Fisher a few games to adjust to really slippery cloth the other day when practicing at a pool room here in Xiamen. She had to adjust her stroke and her aiming to account for the extra slide on the cue ball and object ball.

But in your world I guess she shouldn't have had to adjust right - after all the pockets didn't change positions.........

All right well I am out until I can try this and see for myself how well it does or does not work as I understand it from the instructions.

By the way, next time you call me spatially challenged why don't you try doing some spotters into a 2 1/2 while 18ft off the ground on a 1ft diving board that is 3ft from the edge of a 2ft catwalk. That's what I did four shows a day for a couple years.

Compared to that being able to point a stick at a ball and send it into another ball isn't very hard. But just like pool in diving there is more than one way to orient yourself to the stationary objects, those being the diving board and the water.

 

[Palmetto cue]

One thing with "the shadow system"- I'm quite sure some will try it and still say B.S. And, for them, they will be correct. The reason they will be correct, is because it depends on how far off the table your head is. The higher you stand, the less reliable, IMHO. Your height off the table changes just where you see that edge of the shadow. The lower, the better.

There where shots that I went "well, this isn't really that close to where I need to hit." Then, I would get down lower, and see that it was right where I needed to hit.

So, before you dismiss it, try different heights off the table.

Keeb, Neil,
Thanks. I tried this when the post first came out with no success. Neil, your post on head/eye height from table really helped. It has some limitations at least in my use so far. I'll try the advise on thin cuts as soon as I can. This is useful even if you only use this as a check on your aim. Try placing your cue tip behind the object ball lined up to the ctr of the pocket. The cue tip would be where the base of the ghostball would rest. Now while still holding the cue rotate around until the cue is lined up straight through the ctr of the cue ball to the base of the ghost ball. I found many shots had a shadow edge to use as an aiming point. Very interesting I thought.
Neil, as I've gotten older, I too have noticed some shots are harder for me to see. Keeb, thanks for being willing to take some crap to help some one. I've only tried this on one table. A 4 1/2 by 9 Diamond with a four light diffused Diamond light, so I don't know how this works on other tables with different lighting situations. The thing I find interesting with all of these different aiming threads is that I'm very happy if I find I can only use this, or any aiming system on only one type of shot. If it helps my confidence, and my pocketing percentage on certain shots, how can that be bad? Great discussion! :grin:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB:
...the shadows on the balls will be consistent to each table just as the diamonds, rails and pockets are

Wrong (and you're confirming over and over that you just can't visualize this stuff).

The diamonds, rails and pockets are always in the same relative positions on any table. You might have to adjust how you use them, but you know in advance exactly what their relative positions are. If you have to adjust, it will be an adjustment of how you use these fixed reference points. You can say something simple like "I have to aim my banks/kicks a little longer than usual on this table". (And, not incidentally, you don't have to adjust every shot you shoot.)

But the shadows from the balls are not in the same positions relative to the pockets on different tables. Because lights are different, you can't even count on having the same number of shadows from each ball. So you can't do something consistent like aim a little fuller or a little thinner from the usual reference shadow - you might have to adjust differently for each angle into each pocket, or even recreate the entire system from scratch because there are a different number of shadows.

It's not like going from one table with slow rails to another with fast rails, where you have to adjust only on banks & kicks. It's like going from a rectangular table to an irregularly shaped table with an unknown number of rails - where every shot is a bank or kick.

I'm pretty sure that you won't get this analogy (one indication is that you seem to think it's like diving), but maybe others will.

pj
chgo

 

[greyghost]

Wrong (and you're confirming over and over that you just can't visualize this stuff).

The diamonds, rails and pockets are always in the same relative positions on any table. You might have to adjust how you use them, but you know in advance exactly what their relative positions are. If you have to adjust, it will be an adjustment of how you use these fixed reference points. You can say something simple like "I have to aim my banks/kicks a little longer than usual on this table". (And, not incidentally, you don't have to adjust every shot you shoot.)

But the shadows from the balls are not in the same positions relative to the pockets on different tables. Because lights are different, you can't even count on having the same number of shadows from each ball. So you can't do something consistent like aim a little fuller or a little thinner from the usual reference shadow - you might have to adjust differently for each angle into each pocket, or even recreate the entire system from scratch because there are a different number of shadows.

It's not like going from one table with slow rails to another with fast rails, where you have to adjust only on banks & kicks. It's like going from a rectangular table to an irregularly shaped table with an unknown number of rails - where every shot is a bank or kick.

I'm pretty sure that you won't get this analogy (one indication is that you seem to think it's like diving), but maybe others will.

pj
chgo

adjusting for roll of a table b/c of rails based off the diamond system.....i don't see how that would be any diff of an adjustment when/if the lights are in a diff position....the pockets never moved

i actually just turned off the table lights and shined lights onto the surface from about 6ft from the right side of the table.......

of course it did not cast a shadow on the right side of the table (light 6ft away) the shadow was cast on the left side the table.....

but if you cut balls towards the right side of the table the technique still worked being that there was a shadow there......

so in an super extreme case when light was coming in at about a 35º angle from 6ft away.....it still worked towards the side the shadow was on......

isn't that interesting

anyone ever been to any pool halls with the lights 6ft off center?

 

[D-Rock]

unless your using 1 standard light bulb hung low the shadows cast should be pretty much the same from table to table. The light is over the ball and cast a shadow underneath it. period

 

[JB Cases]

Wrong (and you're confirming over and over that you just can't visualize this stuff).

Who says your visualization is what Greyghost is seeing when he is using his method? Once again I am not even trying to visualize the method he is talking about. ONLY speaking to the fact that the lights don't move. Whereever they happen to be is where they are and the shadows they cast stay in the same places every time.

The diamonds, rails and pockets are always in the same relative positions on any table. You might have to adjust how you use them, but you know in advance exactly what their relative positions are. If you have to adjust, it will be an adjustment of how you use these fixed reference points. You can say something simple like "I have to aim my banks/kicks a little longer than usual on this table". (And, not incidentally, you don't have to adjust every shot you shoot.)

Any why is it beyond your imagination to think that a player can't do the same on tables with different lighting? It's really funny that you go on and on and on and on and on about how CTE MUST rely on subconscious adjustment and yet here you say such adjustment, conscious or subconscious is not possible. What if the Shadow method gets you "close enough" and then your brain does the rest? Isn't that your whole premise of how CTE can work?

But the shadows from the balls are not in the same positions relative to the pockets on different tables. Because lights are different, you can't even count on having the same number of shadows from each ball. So you can't do something consistent like aim a little fuller or a little thinner from the usual reference shadow - you might have to adjust differently for each angle into each pocket, or even recreate the entire system from scratch because there are a different number of shadows.

Once again in my opinion real world experience trumps theory. Here we have one person who presented it who claims it works for them in different conditions. And several other people have reported that it works for them under different conditions. And then you who claims that it cannot work in theory.

It's not like going from one table with slow rails to another with fast rails, where you have to adjust only on banks & kicks. It's like going from a rectangular table to an irregularly shaped table with an unknown number of rails - where every shot is a bank or kick.

Not quite. Once again, the lights are fixed. They may be a different number - brightness - or height - but the light source is constant and so are the shadows it casts - therefore it's POSSIBLE that one who is adept at using this technique may be able to adapt to different conditions in pretty much the same way a person adapts otherwise to different table conditions.

I'm pretty sure that you won't get this analogy (one indication is that you seem to think it's like diving), but maybe others will.

I get it just fine. Just that your analogy if flawed. Mine is correct.

I like diving because I had to dive under different conditions and be very aware of my position in space relative to many dangerous objects. I had to adapt to each show's setup and change my technique to account for it so that I would not be injured or killed. Have you ever had to do anything like that? So don't tell me that I don't have spatial awareness or no visualization skills. When you are standing on the 3 meter board and you are going to do (try) a backwards 3 1/2 then you had better have damn good visualization AND damn good spatial awareness or you will land on your back or face. I am not making up analogies here I am giving you one from real life.

People come on this board and give up their testimonials as to what they are experiencing on the table in real life Pat and before you can even take it to the table and try it you are cutting them to shreds and essentially calling them self-deluded liars.

All under the idea that you are somehow saving the people from being influenced by hocus pocus.

Why not change your methods a little?

Why not try things first and then discuss the shortcomings as you find them ON THE TABLE?

But anyway, once again I dove into a theory discussion with you which is what you relish more than anything and there is no way to come to a consensus on a theory discussion with you. If there is anything as fixed as the diamonds, pockets and lights it's your opinion.

I will leave it to Greyghost to show his method and hopefully others will give it a fair trial despite your protests.

 

[Renegade_56]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but aiming by shadows CANNOT work reliably. If you think this is working, then you're aiming subconciously and making balls.

The shadows do NOT know where the pocket is. There is zero correlation. Period.

I can't believe no one responded to this, it is the only post in the thread that makes sense!

Renegade

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB:
I will leave it to Greyghost to show his method and hopefully others will give it a fair trial despite your protests.

Whatever others choose to do, it will be a more informed choice because of my "protests". Why do you think nobody should hear reasoned critiques of these homecooked aiming systems? Do you think discussion forums are here only to feed you what you want to hear?

And before you start the usual droning about "giving it a fair trial", remember that I have tried it and it was exactly the waste of my time I knew it would be - not because it doesn't work the way Keeb says (although it definitely doesn't), but because its imperfections were precisely what and fully as obvious as I knew they'd be.

How did I know what I knew? Because, believe it or not John, it isn't rocket science to visualize how shadows fall and to reason whether or not they can be reliable systematic aiming aids. The fact that you don't get this shows your problem with simple visualization and reasoning, not my bias against systems.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Whatever others choose to do, it will be a more informed choice because of my "protests". Why do you think nobody should hear reasoned critiques of these homecooked aiming systems? Do you think discussion forums are here only to feed you what you want to hear?

And before you start the usual droning about "giving it a fair trial", remember that I have tried it and it was exactly the waste of my time I knew it would be - not because it doesn't work the way Keeb says (although it definitely doesn't), but because its imperfections were precisely what and fully as obvious as I knew they'd be.

How did I know what I knew? Because, believe it or not John, it isn't rocket science to visualize how shadows fall and to reason whether or not they can be reliable systematic aiming aids. The fact that you don't get this is your problem with simple visualization and reasoning, not my bias against systems.

pj
chgo

Who said anything about it being perfect? What is perfect? There is no aiming method that is "perfect" as all of them rely on judgment, and perception. That's why we call it aiming and not just shooting. When someone is playing well we don't say that they are aiming well, we say that they are shooting well. In other words whatever they are doing to aim is working because they are landing on the right line consistently and the rest of their mechanics are working as well.

You act as if someone is selling a bottle of Dr. Feelgood here that you have to warn people about.

This a free method someone discovered that helps them. It was offered with no strings attached. Try it and take what you want and leave the rest.

A real simple doesn't work for me and here's why would be sufficient. But be honest, you ripped into it even before you got to the table.

If all these things are a waste of your time then why bother discussing them? Why not just let them be and let people make the choice on their own.

YOUR theory of what will or won't happen on a pool table isn't always right and certainly it's not always right for everyone.

It's like the great bankers who "twist" balls in. It's really hard to explain how they do it, they just do it, they know when and how to do it. Can't really be taught in a book or on "paper" but in person it can be shown.

Believe it or not I get what you are doing. It's not dissimilar to what I do when I try to get people to think a little deeper about cue protection. If someone says a case is the nuts in protection when I know it's not then I generally feel compelled to speak up. So if you think you "know" how something works or doesn't by how it's described then I can see where that conviction leads you to say something.

So I get where you are coming from.

Carry on then.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

GreyGhost:
when light was coming in at about a 35º angle from 6ft away.....it still worked towards the side the shadow was on......

isn't that interesting

I guess it's "interesting" that you think it's even possible.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

That's absolutely right, and the only way this would work. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but aiming by shadows CANNOT work reliably. If you think this is working, then you're aiming subconciously and making balls.

The shadows do NOT know where the pocket is. There is zero correlation. Period.

But you know where the pockets are, and the rails, and the lights. These three things don't move. They are all things that a person could use to determine how to place him or herself in relation to the particular ball placement.

This reminds me of all the people who have said that acupuncture cannot work. Yet recently scientists finally figured out that it does work and how it works.

I think that with a little research you will find prominent papers written by prestigious doctors who dismissed acupuncture as a bunch of primitive nonsense.

I find it funny that on AZB there is one camp that looks at any new aiming methods and can't wait to try them out and report back and there is another camp that attempts to discredit them without even trying them.

Jose Parica, Rafael Martinez, Larry Nevel, Corey Duell, Efren, and others are players who do things that seem impossible on the pool table all the time. If one of those guys came on here and said that they use the shadows to aim then the negative nellies would be tripping over themselves to figure out HOW it could possibly work. But if Joe Nobody proposes such a thing then he seems to be fair game to be dismissed as a crackpot.

Such is life I guess. Anytime someone says to me that something is impossible and it's within my power to try it then I do so eagerly just to see if they are right.

 

[JB Cases]

Some things you don't have to try to know the answer. But I wasted my time trying this one for a change, and proved to myself what I already knew: that it's nonsense.

- 4 in-line cone lights centered over the table
- lots of OB positions for shots into different pockets
- lots of different shot angles for each position (these pics are representative examples)

The results were the same for every OB position: the shadow showed the correct contact point from one shot angle only. From every other angle the shadow showed the wrong contact point.

As anybody with any sense of spatial relationships knows without trying, this method is nonsense.

pj
chgo

P.S. To be clear, what I mean by "nonsense" is the idea that this method gives an exact aiming point. The shadows fall in random positions relative to the real contact point, some closer to it, some farther from it - but only by chance will one fall exactly in the right place for any given shot.

View attachment 152931
View attachment 152932
View attachment 152929
View attachment 152930

As I said when I have time then I will attempt to duplicate your pictures with chalk lines and with the camera looking down the GB aiming line as indicated by drawn lines. Then we can get a clearer picture of how the shadows correspond to the exact lines.

 

[KCRack'em]

Witnessed it....

So I just opened this can of worms to find out I wasn't the first to do so. I'm not shocked that this has been discussed already. I'm also not shocked that the debate was somewhat contentious.
All I have to add is that I have witnessed it in use in Great Falls, Montana. The player told me he learned it from an old-timer. We were playing a tournement on bar tables, and the lighting was not very consistent, yet the system worked for him on each of the tables. I wasn't open-minded enough to fully grasp it, yet it has stuck with me for many years.
The key thing to remember about various systems is that they should be used as guides. Many pro photographers use autofocus to get close and then switch to manual focus. They trust themselves more than they trust the system.
I have a good friend who has studied many systems for a wide variety of shots. Where it helps most is when the "feel" for the shot deserts him. He can then rely on a system to find a way to make the shot and help ease his nerves. IMO that's exactly how systems should be used.
No one system is the end-all-be-all. Collectively, though, systems can be very useful. But as my friend says to me, "You need to put time in on the table."
Karl