How Fractional Aiming Systems Help
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
"ctel in relation to the pocket" -- what is that? As I explained to you a year ago, there is only one vertical plane that just touches the right side of the OB and passes through the CB center, and there is only one vertical plane that just touches the left side of the OB and passes through the CB center. The CTEL's are in those planes, not some plane touching different points on the OB.
You and Neil keep arguing that the answer to multiple cut angles from the same basic reference or alignment-menu choice is simply different CTEL's. When you say CTEL maybe you mean something different than I do. Maybe the hurdle is all semantic.
Last year, I said this: "When users talk about the outermost edge or rotating edges, they must just be referring to viewing that plane, or a line in that plane, from a slightly different angle (the "vision center" isn't in that plane)." Is that right or wrong?
I'd appreciate hearing more from you about what you mean by "ctel in relation to the pocket" and how it differs from my definition of a CTEL.
Who is Paul? Sorry, I'm not recognizing who you mean.
I posted something quite a few pages ago, saw no responses really, I think it got buried amongst some back and forth between a few people... 
In short, there is feel involved in pool no matter what aiming system you use. And no aiming system is perfect or will enable you to make every ball 100% of the time - we still make mistakes in sighting, pivoting/moving into the shot, mechanics, etc., no matter what aiming approach we use.
Without aiming well somehow, you'll never make a ball. Without solid fundamentals, you'll never delivery the cue ball properly to the spot you are aiming at. Both are needed in combination, as well as knowledge and execution of pattern play, speed control, mental focus, etc., in order to play this game well.
Since I'm a somewhat recent convert to CTE/Pro1, been using it about a year now, I think I along with a few others have a unique perspective. I don't think I've antagonized anyone in any of the dozens (hundreds!) of aiming threads, or continually presented the same idea or agenda over and over, or did anything else blatantly negative that people on both sides have done. It's made for some good entertainment and work time reading though… My main interest is the threads has been to discuss the system, help others pick it up if they are struggling, and perhaps come to a deeper understand of why or how it works.
There are a few things I keep seeing that do drive me nuts though. First, there is no more feel involved in the CTE approach than there is with regular ghostball or any other sort of aiming. You get to the proper aim point or initial aim line by visualizing a ghost ball, a thickness of hit, 90/90, CTE/Pro1 lines, shadows, etc. while standing. From there, you move into and down to the shot, whether you are trying to do that in a straight line from behind the perceived aim point or while performing a consistent pivot motion. There is certainly feel and experience that come into either of those movements, as there is no "system" that allows you to precisely align your body to the shot or place your bridge hand in the perfect place each time. At this point with either system, you hope you are lined up correctly and all that's left is to execute the shot.
As stated previously, I'm a math/science guy, I don't do well with explanations that aren't precise or don't make sense. I struggled with the DVD, I think there were a few key things that were left out that could have made a huge difference, but those were cleared up nicely by people on the forum and Stan himself. Once I "got" it, I had that aha moment that I think mohrt referred to and I haven't looked back since.
For me the benefit has been precision - I always felt like I was guessing on some shots my old way, where with CTE/Pro1 I can follow a prescribed number of steps, which have become second nature by now, which gets me directly to the proper aim line every time for all shots. Sure I had to learn when to use which aim lines and pivots, that came through the information and practice. But it's very intuitive and doesn't change. For any given shot, it's pretty easy to tell what to do with just a little practice, I've been able to summarize it for people very quickly, even though it took me a bit of time to learn it on my own. It doesn't change, I don't aim in one place one time and another for the next shot in order to make it, and I don't pivot differently for one vs another.
As long as the shot is within the same category, say from 15 degrees to 30 degrees roughly, I can look at the same points, perform the same pivot to center ball, and make all of the shots, regardless of the exact cut angle or distance involved. How? I don't know. Geometry, visual intelligence, magic, doesn't matter - it works. Will agree that it might not be for everyone, if you already have a solid aiming approach than why switch? But for anyone that is struggling with aiming, or looking for a nice disciplined approach, I think CTE/Pro1 can be helpful, as can some of the other aiming systems.
Certainly willing to answer any questions without being mysterious or confrontational…
Scott
In short, there is feel involved in pool no matter what aiming system you use. And no aiming system is perfect or will enable you to make every ball 100% of the time - we still make mistakes in sighting, pivoting/moving into the shot, mechanics, etc., no matter what aiming approach we use.
Without aiming well somehow, you'll never make a ball. Without solid fundamentals, you'll never delivery the cue ball properly to the spot you are aiming at. Both are needed in combination, as well as knowledge and execution of pattern play, speed control, mental focus, etc., in order to play this game well.
Since I'm a somewhat recent convert to CTE/Pro1, been using it about a year now, I think I along with a few others have a unique perspective. I don't think I've antagonized anyone in any of the dozens (hundreds!) of aiming threads, or continually presented the same idea or agenda over and over, or did anything else blatantly negative that people on both sides have done. It's made for some good entertainment and work time reading though… My main interest is the threads has been to discuss the system, help others pick it up if they are struggling, and perhaps come to a deeper understand of why or how it works.
There are a few things I keep seeing that do drive me nuts though. First, there is no more feel involved in the CTE approach than there is with regular ghostball or any other sort of aiming. You get to the proper aim point or initial aim line by visualizing a ghost ball, a thickness of hit, 90/90, CTE/Pro1 lines, shadows, etc. while standing. From there, you move into and down to the shot, whether you are trying to do that in a straight line from behind the perceived aim point or while performing a consistent pivot motion. There is certainly feel and experience that come into either of those movements, as there is no "system" that allows you to precisely align your body to the shot or place your bridge hand in the perfect place each time. At this point with either system, you hope you are lined up correctly and all that's left is to execute the shot.
As stated previously, I'm a math/science guy, I don't do well with explanations that aren't precise or don't make sense. I struggled with the DVD, I think there were a few key things that were left out that could have made a huge difference, but those were cleared up nicely by people on the forum and Stan himself. Once I "got" it, I had that aha moment that I think mohrt referred to and I haven't looked back since.
For me the benefit has been precision - I always felt like I was guessing on some shots my old way, where with CTE/Pro1 I can follow a prescribed number of steps, which have become second nature by now, which gets me directly to the proper aim line every time for all shots. Sure I had to learn when to use which aim lines and pivots, that came through the information and practice. But it's very intuitive and doesn't change. For any given shot, it's pretty easy to tell what to do with just a little practice, I've been able to summarize it for people very quickly, even though it took me a bit of time to learn it on my own. It doesn't change, I don't aim in one place one time and another for the next shot in order to make it, and I don't pivot differently for one vs another.
As long as the shot is within the same category, say from 15 degrees to 30 degrees roughly, I can look at the same points, perform the same pivot to center ball, and make all of the shots, regardless of the exact cut angle or distance involved. How? I don't know. Geometry, visual intelligence, magic, doesn't matter - it works. Will agree that it might not be for everyone, if you already have a solid aiming approach than why switch? But for anyone that is struggling with aiming, or looking for a nice disciplined approach, I think CTE/Pro1 can be helpful, as can some of the other aiming systems.
Certainly willing to answer any questions without being mysterious or confrontational…
Scott
Nope, you can find the no-spin line of aim via the aiming method and then do whatever is necessary to add spin -- parallel english with an aiming compensation, back-hand english, front-hand english, some combination of BHE and FHE, etc.
How it works might matter to players who can't use (maybe won't even try) a system that doesn't make complete sense to them. If it's explained in a way that doesn't violate their sense of reason, (say, that it's a system of alignment guides that doesn't eliminate estimation but can reduce it or make it easier), more of them may try it and more of those who try it may stay with it.
pj
chgo
CTE is a system of alignment guides that doesn't eliminate estimation but can reduce it or make it easier. Care to try it?
I posted something quite a few pages ago, saw no responses really, I think it got buried amongst some back and forth between a few people...
In short, there is feel involved in pool no matter what aiming system you use. And no aiming system is perfect or will enable you to make every ball 100% of the time - we still make mistakes in sighting, pivoting/moving into the shot, mechanics, etc., no matter what aiming approach we use.
Without aiming well somehow, you'll never make a ball. Without solid fundamentals, you'll never delivery the cue ball properly to the spot you are aiming at. Both are needed in combination, as well as knowledge and execution of pattern play, speed control, mental focus, etc., in order to play this game well.
Since I'm a somewhat recent convert to CTE/Pro1, been using it about a year now, I think I along with a few others have a unique perspective. I don't think I've antagonized anyone in any of the dozens (hundreds!) of aiming threads, or continually presented the same idea or agenda over and over, or did anything else blatantly negative that people on both sides have done. It's made for some good entertainment and work time reading though… My main interest is the threads has been to discuss the system, help others pick it up if they are struggling, and perhaps come to a deeper understand of why or how it works.
There are a few things I keep seeing that do drive me nuts though. First, there is no more feel involved in the CTE approach than there is with regular ghostball or any other sort of aiming. You get to the proper aim point or initial aim line by visualizing a ghost ball, a thickness of hit, 90/90, CTE/Pro1 lines, shadows, etc. while standing. From there, you move into and down to the shot, whether you are trying to do that in a straight line from behind the perceived aim point or while performing a consistent pivot motion. There is certainly feel and experience that come into either of those movements, as there is no "system" that allows you to precisely align your body to the shot or place your bridge hand in the perfect place each time. At this point with either system, you hope you are lined up correctly and all that's left is to execute the shot.
As stated previously, I'm a math/science guy, I don't do well with explanations that aren't precise or don't make sense. I struggled with the DVD, I think there were a few key things that were left out that could have made a huge difference, but those were cleared up nicely by people on the forum and Stan himself. Once I "got" it, I had that aha moment that I think mohrt referred to and I haven't looked back since.
For me the benefit has been precision - I always felt like I was guessing on some shots my old way, where with CTE/Pro1 I can follow a prescribed number of steps, which have become second nature by now, which gets me directly to the proper aim line every time for all shots. Sure I had to learn when to use which aim lines and pivots, that came through the information and practice. But it's very intuitive and doesn't change. For any given shot, it's pretty easy to tell what to do with just a little practice, I've been able to summarize it for people very quickly, even though it took me a bit of time to learn it on my own. It doesn't change, I don't aim in one place one time and another for the next shot in order to make it, and I don't pivot differently for one vs another.
As long as the shot is within the same category, say from 15 degrees to 30 degrees roughly, I can look at the same points, perform the same pivot to center ball, and make all of the shots, regardless of the exact cut angle or distance involved. How? I don't know. Geometry, visual intelligence, magic, doesn't matter - it works. Will agree that it might not be for everyone, if you already have a solid aiming approach than why switch? But for anyone that is struggling with aiming, or looking for a nice disciplined approach, I think CTE/Pro1 can be helpful, as can some of the other aiming systems.
Certainly willing to answer any questions without being mysterious or confrontational…
Scott
You're not the only one who is benefiting from CTE/Pro1 and I'm not talking about myself either.
There are others on this forum who are hitting that "aha" moment as this is written. They are just a little slow in jumping on the band wagon as far as the forum is concerned, but I wouldn't be surprised if they will be coming out of the closet in the future.
Your post in this thread, parallels most of my thoughts as well.
LOL. Snagged on my own logic!
Actually I've been trying to think of how to graft some of its principles onto my own "by feel" aiming - I imagine it as a kind of "graphical aiming user interface". In fact, that was a big part of my impetus for starting this thread - if the "debate" ever ends maybe I'll get some thoughts about how to do that without having to learn the whole damned thing.
pj
chgo
This is wrong. You can use multiple ctel's depending on where you want the ob to go. I can make some shots in 4 different pockets using 4 different ctel's.
Sorry I missed this question earlier in the thread, LAMas. You don't "find lines" between the reference lines, you only need the ones given. I will repeat: these are not aiming lines, they are pre-pivot reference lines. It is the act of the pivot that takes you from the pre-pivot reference line to the precise shot line. It is the distinct visual of the CB/OB/pocket that differentiates every shot within each reference line.
I got Brumbach's banking DVD, a lot of stuff don't make sense to me, but the balls sure bank good. Thanks, John.
Don't care how it's done, as long as it's done.
I got that too and learned a lot, even though John doesn't get into many details on why/how things work.
pj
chgo
Wrong. If i'm say cutting a ball to the left, I stand behind the shot, get my visuals, including the ctel, slide in and shoot. Same shot but decide to cut it to the right, move a little to right to get behind the shot, get my visuals, ( different ctel ), slide in and shoot.
Outermost edge is the edge that the ctel goes through that is farthest from the pocket, with a relationship to the QB.
Rotating edge is when those balls are moved, the ctel can rotate around the OB keeping the pocket-QB relationship intact.
But yet you still use it.
I can't prove gravity exists or doesn't exist, but somehow I stay stuck to this planet. Should that bother me?
Sure. But because I've gone to the trouble to understand why/how his techniques work, I can use them even on shots he doesn't show on the DVD. "Give me a fish" vs. "teach me to fish".
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Actually, John does -- if you listen. John doesn't get into "demonstrative" stuff with his hands, cue, diagrams, or anything like that. But he does explain, verbally, "why" he shoots the bank the way he does. He explains the concepts of "making the pocket as large as possible" -- which is key to the way he banks. And, as he's demonstrating each bank, if you listen, he reinforces the concept. Some of the banks are different versions of the same thing, so for those, I think he's counting on you -- the viewer -- to recognize those "variations on a theme" and thus he doesn't regurgitate those same details.
Just FYI,
-Sean
You're saying my definition of ctel's is wrong? For a given placement of a CB and an OB you can find 4 ctel's rather than just 2? If so, please give your definition of a ctel.