How Fractional Aiming Systems Help
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
PJ, What exactly is the feel part your talking about ? Is it a little adjustment after your down on the shot to fine tune your aim?
What I mean by negligible is that we don't need to think about it. Agreed it would be great to uncover a complete understanding of the technical details.
I think trying to quantify "feel" with terms like "a little" or "a lot" leads to less understanding of it. I know that it's essential - without it we'd only make shots by accident. I also know that it's involved in many aspects of aiming, from judging the direction to the pocket to choosing the right system alignment to actually making the system alignment to "seeing" the center of the CB to knowing if your stick is online, etc., etc.
But to keep things simple and on track here, I'm talking in this thread only about estimating/adjusting from system reference cut(s) to the final cut needed for the shot. Even that isn't "little" - it's the most exacting and difficult part of the aiming process and without it we'd miss the vast majority of shots.
pj
chgo
Sure - that's probably essential to its function. But thinking and talking about it away from the table may be essential to maximizing its functionality.
I think it would be great to just begin talking about it openly without all the kneejerk objections. It's the black hole at the center of the aiming universe and it's almost a taboo topic here. Where's the sense in that?
Admittedly it's a slippery subject, dealing with subconscious/conscious interaction and all, but that's no reason to avoid it. I bet it will be useful however incomplete our understanding remains.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
All of the past s**t flinging has been instigated by condescending attitudes. There is no reason this can't be a simple discussion where we can discuss each others ideas without going that direction.
Lots of that, and lots of "combative ignorance" leading to that.
So you think we should ban humans from the discussion, huh? Hmm...
pj
chgo
I don't want to highjack this thread, but you asked.
Here's a short thread about how I aim - Double the Distance. When the CB and OB are very close, the method breaks down and I prefer CP to CP aiming for the balls appear to be closer in size and points of contact are better defined.
Before I get down on the shot, I see the contact point on the OB and concentrate on that point to the center of the OB and then double it to the outside, get down with the center of my shaft and CB. I then apply english if desired.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=190253&highlight=double+distance+aiming
Last edited:
There are no "system reference cuts."
There are visual references and imaginative references. There are objective references such as the balls and pockets and rails and reflections and edges of the balls and subjective references like ghost balls and mentally drawn lines.
Obviously the more objective references there are then the easier it it to imagine the subjective references.
I know it's hard to understand that aiming can be prescriptive but in fact using Hal's methods that is exactly what it is. Follow the steps and the bridge hand goes down and the cue tip goes to the ball and that's the shot line.
Ironically the hardest part is then trusting the line and not twitching. As I mentioned earlier it's incredibly easy to throw the ball off the shot line and thus the shooter MUST execute properly. When no prescription method is used, i.e. feel then players can also sort of correct on the fly using feel and body english, wrist flips, etc....
When the correct shot line is chosen however then any body english, wrist flips, should dips, etc....tends to pull the cue ball OFF the correct line.
The difference in my opinion is missed shots when done by feel can be missed by a large margin whereas missed shots when done by prescription tend to missed by an inch or less on average.
What you refer to as system reference cuts are not cuts. They are simply visual aids for bodily alignment. You aren't getting down at one cut angle and then moving into another one that is the final shot line. All the body alignment is done standing up and when you come down to the table your bridge hand settles into the shot line according to the body position you were forced into by the prescription use of the objective references.
Now of course you have to FEEL right about non-existent lines that you had to imagine going from ball-to-ball. If those lines are not properly imagined then the resulting shot line is likely to be wrong. In the same way that if you don't pick the right ghost ball position your shot line will be incorrect.
Only it's easier, for many of us, to use the cue ball and object ball with the center and the edge (or shadows/reflections) to then draw a line to follow.
For a great many shots, especially ones where optical illusions interfere with judgement, following the prescription forces the body to adopt a line that "looks wrong" but is actually correct. This is the polar opposite of feel and is actually learning to ignore feel to force the mind to see the right line instead of the one that feels right.
That doesn't have to be taken so literally. Reference cuts don't have to be CB/OB alignments that you physically aim at and then adjust your aim physically from there. They can be visual references that you're simply aware of before or during the final aiming process, like you describe below.
This is very insightful.
Here's where we part company (as usual). The steps you follow are the ones that you've developed for your "personal system" from sketchy system descriptions provided by Hal, Stan, etc. - the flesh you put on their system bones is your personal method of getting from the "system references" to the final aim, which feels to you like more of the system but is really you adding the essential element of feel.
The system descriptions of this user-added part of the process are skeletal (in the case of Stan) to nonexistent (in the case of Hal) - I know because I've seen both. It seems systematic to you because it's the way you always do it, but I know from being at the table with you and trying to understand your description that it isn't any kind of objectively systematic process, and that you don't really understand the difference. (No offense meant; different people have different skills.)
pj
chgo
When you and I were visiting it was a year and a half ago. Since then I have learned a lot more about how the method works that I use and why it works.
So when we were together and you asked me to explain how the last step works I couldn't. Since then I have described how it works several times on here.
It's not my personal system. It's the method according to specific instructions. It's definitely a prescription for lining up, definitely mechanical, definitely a consistent approach that is the same every time.
In this video I do 12 shots where each shot is done from a different position. This group of shots is done from fixed positions to show that the motions are exactly the same regardless of ball position.
For every single shot the steps leading up to the getting down on the shot are exactly the same. The body motions are exactly the same. The ONLY difference is the positions of the balls relative to the shooter. So the ONLY thing that changes position shot to shot is the shooter.
The measurement for every single shot is the same. I am not looking for contact points, ghost balls, or guessing in the least. I am doing the exact same three steps before I shoot the ball.
This is about as objective as it gets in shotmaking. On all these shots I don't feel as if the line is right or wrong. I take the line given.
In contrast Pat when you and I visited if you remember right I pointed out to you that you fidget after you are down on the ball. You disagreed but then a few shots later you agreed and said you had never noticed it before. You said you were fine tuning the aim.
I don't fine tune the aim. I do three steps and take the line. Using this I make some pretty sporty shots where I have no idea if the line I am on is right or wrong. This is especially helpful in one pocket.
If you remember I asked you to simply try the steps and you declined. My hope was that if you tried to simply follow the directions you would have possibly at least experienced the same thing I did but you had no interest at that time to try and so we just agreed to drop it and play. I still maintain that if you would actually try to learn the methods with an open mind then you would be in a better position to describe where exactly you think that feel comes into play.
It is my opinion that you are so used to your method of contact point + fidgeting to fine tune the line after you are already down on the ball that are very loathe to consider that it's possible to find the line without doing it that way.
Sean however provided you with a perfect example of a beginner player changing to a non-standard method of visualization that directs alignment and seeing an immediate jump in performance. I have reported the same thing after teaching ball-to-ball aiming methods to beginners and you have dismissed it. In my opinion if D players begin making B/A level shots after learning a new aiming method, immediately after learning it, then you can not ascribe the ball making to feel.
I've read your descriptions, and they don't tell me how to mimic what you do. I've read scores of other descriptions by other CTE users, and none of them tell me how to mimic what they do. I've watched Stan Shuffet's DVD (more than once) and it didn't tell me how to mimic what he or his son or Stevie Moore do. I don't mean mimic their playing skill; I mean mimic the steps they take to implement the system even poorly. If the steps can't be imitated, then they aren't "prescriptive".
Sorry, we'll just have to disagree about the definition of "objective".
Of course you can. What you cannot do is place much meaning or importance on these cherry-picked anecdotes. I could tell you many stories of students to whom I've taught fractional aiming concepts (yes, I do) who have got something of value from them and many others who have not. Which ones are the "truth"?
I repeat: no fractional system, CTE, "3 angles", SAM or any other, gives fully "prescriptive" aiming instructions that tell a shooter exactly how to aim every shot. None of them even come close to that. It's this very fact - that "feel" is inescapable in aiming and that these systems make "feel" work better for their users (make it work at all in many cases) - that's fascinating and worth exploring.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
John, if you followed the threads last year after Stan released his CTE/Pro-One DVD, you should remember that the prescription for Stan's CTE is not all that is involved. Here's something I wrote at that time.
[Stan] is acknowledging that the basic set of prescriptions, if executed precisely the same way every time, would create only a small number of cut angles for a given CB-OB distance. So that issue should be settled. What, then, creates the additional cut angles; what turns a discrete method into a continuous method -- one with enough cut angles to pocket all shots? Where is the "feel" being introduced? Stan has now answered that question -- it is different eye positions for the same set of visuals. In other words, for any particular shot and alignment-menu choice, such as this:
multiple cut angles can be achieved by viewing the CTEL and secondary alignment line from different eye positions.
How does one know where to put his eyes? It is knowledge gained from experience. Stan did not acknowledge that this is "feel," but I'm sure many of us would view it that way, as feel in any aiming method is developed from experience in using the method.
So there we have it. Stan's manual CTE depends upon utilizing multiple eye positions within each of the basic 6 alignments. The feel or additional knowledge is not introduced by varying the offset, or by varying the bridge length (beyond what Stan prescribes), or by fudging the pivot -- it comes from knowing where to place the eyes while still somehow holding to the underlying pair of visuals for each of the prescriptions.
I hope this really puts an end to the squabbles. Manual CTE is not some voodoo hocus pocus. It is not geometric magic. There are no supernatural powers to align-&-pivot methods. It doesn't work because of numerology -- the table being 1x2 or 90 being the sum of 45, 30, and 15. It works by utilizing a small number of reference alignments that the player has learned to fine tune based on his explicit knowledge of where the pocket is and the appearance of the cut angle needed for the shot, i.e., his experience-based knowledge of the shot needed.
CB-OB distance = 3 feet
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right
multiple cut angles can be achieved by viewing the CTEL and secondary alignment line from different eye positions.
How does one know where to put his eyes? It is knowledge gained from experience. Stan did not acknowledge that this is "feel," but I'm sure many of us would view it that way, as feel in any aiming method is developed from experience in using the method.
So there we have it. Stan's manual CTE depends upon utilizing multiple eye positions within each of the basic 6 alignments. The feel or additional knowledge is not introduced by varying the offset, or by varying the bridge length (beyond what Stan prescribes), or by fudging the pivot -- it comes from knowing where to place the eyes while still somehow holding to the underlying pair of visuals for each of the prescriptions.
I hope this really puts an end to the squabbles. Manual CTE is not some voodoo hocus pocus. It is not geometric magic. There are no supernatural powers to align-&-pivot methods. It doesn't work because of numerology -- the table being 1x2 or 90 being the sum of 45, 30, and 15. It works by utilizing a small number of reference alignments that the player has learned to fine tune based on his explicit knowledge of where the pocket is and the appearance of the cut angle needed for the shot, i.e., his experience-based knowledge of the shot needed.
..."CB-OB distance = 3 feet
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right"...
The mind is a powerful data processor and microprocessor integrated circuits are also very powerful and fast. They can be programmed with look up tables of CB-OB distances, cut left or right, secondary alignment (if necessary), cue tip offsets (more than one) and pivot left or right. All of this in milliseconds with precise accuracy, but the human brain can't handle all of these variables - if it could, then a master could explain all of the variables for every shot with clarity and diagrams.
A computer with graphics can, and if it can, then CTE is geometrically correct but has so many variables that must be recalled for a given shot that it is not a parsimonious method of aiming....for me.
It is a gift for those that can retain and process all of the variables and run rack after rack of balls.:thumbup:
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right"...
The mind is a powerful data processor and microprocessor integrated circuits are also very powerful and fast. They can be programmed with look up tables of CB-OB distances, cut left or right, secondary alignment (if necessary), cue tip offsets (more than one) and pivot left or right. All of this in milliseconds with precise accuracy, but the human brain can't handle all of these variables - if it could, then a master could explain all of the variables for every shot with clarity and diagrams.
A computer with graphics can, and if it can, then CTE is geometrically correct but has so many variables that must be recalled for a given shot that it is not a parsimonious method of aiming....for me.
It is a gift for those that can retain and process all of the variables and run rack after rack of balls.:thumbup:
Ok, so when is the adjusting/estimating done, standing up or while down on the shot?
I think it's often a continuous process that includes both of those. With CTE, for example, adjusting/estimating begins with the shooter's choice of "aimpoints" and pivot direction, which may be while still walking around. Then it continues with increasing focus as the shooter "acquires the visual", positions the body, places the bridge hand and finally pivots to the shot line (and maybe even steers the stroke).
None of these steps are described or defined in any precise or "mechanical" way - they're described very vaguely and left almost entirely for the shooter to define for himself, shot by shot. Despite all the protests to the contrary, this is aiming by feel with the system's visual references for assistance.
I'll give an example or two (in other posts) of how this same principle is at work in some more familiar and less formal aiming techniques.
pj
chgo
A Reference Example For Banking
Here's an example (from a post I made a year and a half ago) of how the "visual reference" principle can work as an informal "system" for aiming banks. I play lots of banks and use this method for just about every shot. Instead of "reference cuts" this method uses known equal-angle bank/kick tracks to estimate bank/kick angles for balls that lie between them. Of course, additional adjustments must be made for speed/spin, etc., but "seeing" a nearby equal-angle track is extremely helpful in making all the necessary adjustments. Even if you're strictly a "feel" banker (I think most good bankers probably are), this "reference track" technique can help a lot when your "feelers" are on the blink.
pj
chgo
Here's an example (from a post I made a year and a half ago) of how the "visual reference" principle can work as an informal "system" for aiming banks. I play lots of banks and use this method for just about every shot. Instead of "reference cuts" this method uses known equal-angle bank/kick tracks to estimate bank/kick angles for balls that lie between them. Of course, additional adjustments must be made for speed/spin, etc., but "seeing" a nearby equal-angle track is extremely helpful in making all the necessary adjustments. Even if you're strictly a "feel" banker (I think most good bankers probably are), this "reference track" technique can help a lot when your "feelers" are on the blink.
pj
chgo
A "banking lane" is an area between two "banking guidelines" that helps you visualize the bank angle for a ball within the banking lane. The blue lines below are guidelines. The areas between them are banking lanes.
Last edited: