Only if you aim the Cue ball center at the Ghost ball center.
Side spin on the CB compromises aiming at the Ghost ball.
.
I need any free working aim system
- Thread starter phcore
- Start date
Only if you aim the Cue ball center at the Ghost ball center.
Side spin on the CB compromises aiming at the Ghost ball.
.
You can't see the contact point or fractions either, not even center ball. They're all "seen" and aligned by learned judgment.Except you can't see the ghostball.
pj
chgo
Or tangent line.
Yes it does... But aiming at ball fractions gives a visual where your CB will deflect if using side spin.
.
Here's a novel idea.... Give it try.
How about not worrying about seeing your OB contact point?
How about finding your pocket angle in front of a OB in PSR?
How about aiming your CCB at the fraction line for the angle?
No learned judgement required ......... https://forums.azbilliards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=508376&d=1545612514
.
Scratching my head how the usual suspects turned this into a CTE bashing thread.
I visualize the contact point on every shot - and I get better and better at it. But I also recognize that’s not the same as actually seeing it. Here’s a novel idea: give realizing that a try.
Understanding the difference between seeing and visualizing doesn’t make me worry - it makes learning how to deal with reality quicker and easier.
Sure - I do that using my learned judgment - so do you.
Fractions aren’t my preferred visualization, but I recognize they’re just like contact points: visualized (estimated) reference points.
lol
Learned judgment is required for all those visualizations - unless you can show me the visible marks on the OB. Getting good at visualizing invisible things doesn’t make them actually objectively visible, though I can see how it might seem that way.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
... and balls don't have edges.
For the purpose of aiming they do.
Isn't that the way things usually turn out around here?
I think the OP said he didn't like CTE and wanted a 'free' aiming system.
CTE wasn't brought up until post 22 with only one system that can work.
Sounds like bashing started after the #22 post.. I don't care how anyone aims.
You can aim at shadows.. or your cue logo facing up.. or a cue voodoo sweep.
The aim thing can work differently, but the main objective is pocket an OB and
move the CB into position for another OB.. Can't happen by thinking too much.
.
With fractions you have a direct point of view reference (from behind the cb) for aiming center cb, using the entire ob to visualize exactly where to send the cb. The contact point, and ghostball for that mattter, must first be visualized from behind the ob, looking toward the pocket. Then you have to stand behind the cb and accurately determine (from that pov) exactly where to send the cb in order to correspond to the contact point or ghostball that you visualized from behind the ob.
It isn't easy, which is why, traditionally, pool takes a while to learn. I believe fractional aiming (when you know which fractional aim point is needed without guessing or guesstimating) can provide a superior learning method, a fast track to automatically recognizing shots and knowing exactly where the cb needs to be.
That was a very good explanation of fractional aiming.
Recognizing your contact point but not aiming to hit it.
Aim CCB to a OB fraction will send the OB that angle.
The hardest part is a back cut but I've got the solution.
.
It was a freebie. Except you'd have to explain what the off set was to me. I haven't been here in so long I forget what the off set is.
Assuming you estimate correctly where the fraction is, and how far from that you have to aim to hit the contact point.
I haven't done that in quite a while.
Yes, just like you have to accurately determine (estimate) from that POV exactly where to send the CB with fractions.
I believe contact point aiming is a superior learning method, if only because you're focused on the actual target you're trying to hit - not an estimated fraction that's some estimated distance from it. Both rely on estimations, but one starts with the target - the other doesn't.
pj
chgo
It was a joke. I was filling in for duckie.
Also pretty funny how you guys complain about this turning into a CTE thread (which, BTW, it isn't by any means) and it turns out that the guy who calls himself Lowenstein was the first to bring up CTE in post 22.