Compensating your aim for a personal sighting issue is a personal correction specific to you. CJ seems to be saying his technique is more generally applicable than that.
pj
chgo
John Schmidt's and Corey Deuel's comments on aiming systems
- Thread starter PoolSharkAllen
- Start date
pj
chgo
I think he's saying the concept is generally applicable - not a specific method that is linked to a particular player.
Let's hope CJ expands on his thoughts--- I'd like to learn more.
That last sentence describes a lightbulb moment I had years ago about CTE.
I've seen CTE proponents claim that the location of the pocket doesn't factor into how you line up the shot.
But there is no rational way this is possible. Without the pocket, there is no aiming system. Any system that makes geometric sense requires it.
Once you know the location of the pocket, you have a bunch of ways to visualize the line of aim... an imaginary dot, an imaginary line, an imaginary vertical fractional slice of the ball... or just look at the pocket with your peripheral vision and feel it... but the pocket HAS to be a factor in any aiming system.
I try to illustrate that with this post:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2389402&postcount=1
Basically... I have excluded the pocket from a shot diagram. How can you tell me where to aim? You can't, even if I tell you the pocket is somewhere to the right, and a thin hit.
When someone says "all systems use something like the ghost ball at heart" I think this is what they're getting at.
I personally would rephrase it to say the contact point, not the ghost ball. You can have a contact point without an imaginary ball. But you can't have an imaginary ball without first having a contact point.
I asked the same question in the Main Forum.
I conclude that CIT (QB) is forcing the OB into the rail before it travels at the indended angle. This isn't as noticable whe the OB is off of the rail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAMas
With respect to my original question, I tried a CTE hit, with stun, on a frozen to the rail OB and the OB seemed to come off of the rail at a slight angle.
------------------------------------
"That is certainly to be expected, more so at slower speeds and clingy conditions."
Regards,
Dave
aka Dr. Dave
or use a little inside english
Makes sense to me. You also have to know where the pocket is at in order to be able to play the ball into a particular side of it, like CJ was talking about. But we could be totally misunderstanding what the CTE users actually meant when they made their statements.
Roger
When someone says the pocket doesn't matter (i.e. "looking at it"), maybe the exact location can be inferred from other information.
Perceptive inference.
It certainly does make sense. They're compensating for the more or less inevitable mechanisms (psychological/biological) that come into play in pressure situations. Without those mechanisms, though, if a shot called for center-fairway, a straight flight path would be better than intentionally angling the ball with respect to the center-line of the fairway, no? Likewise, if you have a tendency to undercut balls in certain situations, then it makes sense to deliberately overcut them until such a time as you get your perceptions in line with reality.
In a general way, deliberately going off-center is a good thing if a negative feedback mechanism comes into play and that mechanism gets disproportionately stronger the more off-center you are . (They deliberately de-focus beams in particle accelerators, for instance, then bring them back to a much more narrow cross-section.) But is there anything like that in pool?
Bank shots, particularly those hit briskly with stun, do involve a negative feedback mechanism. If you overcut it, you put more spin on the ball which tends to shorten the bank. Undercutting it produces less spin and lengthens the rebound. That's why banks seem easier than they should be, by rights. But even in that case, the compensation isn't disproportionally larger, so there's no advantage to deliberately avoiding center-pocket.
Squirt is a negative feedback mechanism of sorts too. But as with banks, it doesn't increase disproportionally with tip offset. If it did, the case might be made to avoid center ball in some circumstances, but it doesn't.
So I'm still wondering what CJ is getting at?
Jim
Overcutting is the "PRO SIDE" of Error
I would suggest staying away from inside "english"....in all the explanations I've used I communicate to CUE the ball to the inside, and DO NOT Spin it.....I usually have to explain this a few times so it's not unusual....just remember, using spin to help pocket a ball is always another veritable, and not recommended.....using this system will keep you from ever undercutting ...and this is the key "Champion players VERY seldom uncut shots"....basically this is all designed to take the "undercut miss" out of the equation....undercutting is "dogging it" - overcutting is simply "not making it"....is the way I like to think of it personally.
I would suggest staying away from inside "english"....in all the explanations I've used I communicate to CUE the ball to the inside, and DO NOT Spin it.....I usually have to explain this a few times so it's not unusual....just remember, using spin to help pocket a ball is always another veritable, and not recommended.....using this system will keep you from ever undercutting ...and this is the key "Champion players VERY seldom uncut shots"....basically this is all designed to take the "undercut miss" out of the equation....undercutting is "dogging it" - overcutting is simply "not making it"....is the way I like to think of it personally.
CJ, does this mean aim for a more full hit on the object ball? And is that because most players tend to hit shots too thin (overcut)?
pj
chgo
I'm sure every CTE advocate agrees with you 100% and the debate is finally over.
That's a stark illustration of why you can't construct the aim line without the crucial location of the pocket. All of the "objective" alignment points are there to be had with both shots, yet where do you aim, or more to the point, where do you pivot?
I'd like to add, though, even if you know where the pocket is, and particularly the point on the 9-ball opposite the pocket in each case, you still can't know where to aim without adding the ghostball into the picture. The layout of the balls relative to the pocket, by itself, sans the ghostball, is insufficient to construct the aim line. Geometry alone can't accomplish that until "ghostball theory" is included (simple as it is). I'm reiterating this point to try to make a distinction between aiming methods that are ghostball based (valid, or at least start off with the right premise), and those that claim to get rid of it altogether (invalid or very difficult to accomplish).
I don't necessarily disagree. I think it's just a matter of semantics, but in my mind, if you can construct the entire ghostball from whatever part of the object ball you're focusing on, such as the contact point, then I would consider that to be ghostball based aiming. For instance, if the cueball was something other than a sphere, say football shaped, you'd have to aim it in a different direction in order to make contact at the same point on the object ball. The aim line that you come up with via the contact point implicitly (but critically) assumes a spherical shape. So even if you're not attempting to drive the center of the cueball at the center of the ghostball, which is the standard meaning of "ghostball aiming," it's still ghostball based if you accept my meaning of "based."
Jim
Last edited:
"Aiming" at a BOWLING analogy
Not really, most amateur misses are under-cut, not over-cut.....
Aiming is more about perception than anything else....and this isn't to say it's easy because it's always more difficult than we want to admit to change our existing perception..
Let me use a simple Bowling analogy to try to influence your perception, because analogies are often the most effective way to quickly get results....
At first glance it would make logical sense in bowling to aim straight at the first pin and try to throw a straight ball...reasoning that the straight ball would be the easiest to control and you would get the most force going straight at all the pins (this would be the pocket in pool)
After trial and error you would find that you could NOT hit the center pin square, so you would get a different result from the shot EVERY TIME (and you would miss the pocket in many different ways)....knowing you couldn't be as consistant as possible you might watch a professional bowler and see that he is NOT trying to hit the center of the pins (or pocket), but is throwing the ball in such a way as to create a BIG SWEET SPOT or pocket in the pins and can CONSISTENTLY hit the same side of center EVERY TIME!
The results speak for themselves....my challenge to you is to see this happening in pool, with ONE DIFFERENCE....there's an object ball between you and your target, so you have to invert the example above.
This will require you to think and thinking {differently} is the ONLY way to change how you look at the game of pool....not me or anyone else can do it for you, but what I attempt to do is to give you enough visual examples so that you will be able to do it and feel it for yourself.
Be easy on yourself, Rome wasn't built in a day and it took me and my associates many years to learn how to do this properly, but the rewards will be worthwhile and you will be at least capable playing your first perfect (300) game (1 hour without missing a billiard shot) ...with enough practice.
Not really, most amateur misses are under-cut, not over-cut.....
Aiming is more about perception than anything else....and this isn't to say it's easy because it's always more difficult than we want to admit to change our existing perception..
Let me use a simple Bowling analogy to try to influence your perception, because analogies are often the most effective way to quickly get results....
At first glance it would make logical sense in bowling to aim straight at the first pin and try to throw a straight ball...reasoning that the straight ball would be the easiest to control and you would get the most force going straight at all the pins (this would be the pocket in pool)
After trial and error you would find that you could NOT hit the center pin square, so you would get a different result from the shot EVERY TIME (and you would miss the pocket in many different ways)....knowing you couldn't be as consistant as possible you might watch a professional bowler and see that he is NOT trying to hit the center of the pins (or pocket), but is throwing the ball in such a way as to create a BIG SWEET SPOT or pocket in the pins and can CONSISTENTLY hit the same side of center EVERY TIME!
The results speak for themselves....my challenge to you is to see this happening in pool, with ONE DIFFERENCE....there's an object ball between you and your target, so you have to invert the example above.
This will require you to think and thinking {differently} is the ONLY way to change how you look at the game of pool....not me or anyone else can do it for you, but what I attempt to do is to give you enough visual examples so that you will be able to do it and feel it for yourself.
Be easy on yourself, Rome wasn't built in a day and it took me and my associates many years to learn how to do this properly, but the rewards will be worthwhile and you will be at least capable playing your first perfect (300) game (1 hour without missing a billiard shot) ...with enough practice.
Pool, Pyramids, and Possibilities
I believe it's correct to say you don't have to "consciously" know where the pocket is, but unconsciously you do....this is what makes systems like CTE work is the table is geometrically perfect and your UNCONSCIOUS knows this whether you're aware of it or not.....the table is 2 perfect squares, with several triangles that are somehow VERY appealing to our subconscious perception.....this is probably why geometric structures like pyramids are so powerful....there's many opinions why this is, and that's a matter of personal opinion....the fact is they DO HAVE an influence on the human mind and allow a certain "magic" to take place that reflect our visual intentions (of making a shot or creating an angle).....and in my opinion "ghost balls" aren't necessary for this phenomenon to work
I believe it's correct to say you don't have to "consciously" know where the pocket is, but unconsciously you do....this is what makes systems like CTE work is the table is geometrically perfect and your UNCONSCIOUS knows this whether you're aware of it or not.....the table is 2 perfect squares, with several triangles that are somehow VERY appealing to our subconscious perception.....this is probably why geometric structures like pyramids are so powerful....there's many opinions why this is, and that's a matter of personal opinion....the fact is they DO HAVE an influence on the human mind and allow a certain "magic" to take place that reflect our visual intentions (of making a shot or creating an angle).....and in my opinion "ghost balls" aren't necessary for this phenomenon to work
I've always thought the opposite.(silly me)Why?because I think many players spin the ball to the whole.(always come in thick of the shot)
Over cutting the ball was always done for safety reasons.
Seen a lot of misses by good player fall thick of the pocket.
Lets talk about balls by the rail.I have always felt you never want to over cut the shot.Why?over cut the ball,it has no chance .Play it thick you have 2 chance to make it.(Right to the whole or off the rail.)
Just my thoughts CJ not trying argue.Thanks for your post .
Anthony
Shoot the shot a few times by under cutting and by over cutting. You'll find that all your misses on under cut shots will result in an easy shot for your opponent. When you over cut the ball and miss you might sell out a bank at the most.
Also over cutting is actually playing the object ball at the pocket opening.
I mentioned for safety reasons in my post.Also this type of thought has everthing to do by where the balls lay.
I believe it's correct to say you don't have to "consciously" know where the pocket is, but unconsciously you do....this is what makes systems like CTE work is the table is geometrically perfect and your UNCONSCIOUS knows this whether you're aware of it or not.....the table is 2 perfect squares, with several triangles that are somehow VERY appealing to our subconscious perception.....this is probably why geometric structures like pyramids are so powerful....there's many opinions why this is, and that's a matter of personal opinion....the fact is they DO HAVE an influence on the human mind and allow a certain "magic" to take place that reflect our visual intentions (of making a shot or creating an angle).....and in my opinion "ghost balls" aren't necessary for this phenomenon to work
That part makes sense to me... I remember during one of the debates I said "ok, I'll cover half the table with a black curtain, and you shoot balls into the corners you can't see"... and I think it was spidey who said he could actually do that. Dr. dave said something similar to what you're saying... we can use the lines we see in our peripheral to infer where the pockets are, even without seeing them.
I'd say that feat requires lots of time and experience at the pool table, aka feel.
I can and I did - I think I posted a video with 1/2 of my table covered with poster board. There's no feel involved. If I can see one rail, the CB and the OB, I can make the OB in a blind pocket. I have a system for that.
I agree that can be done with the visual cues of the rail, diamonds, etc. - but at the time you posted that video you said (if I recall correctly) that you could do it without those cues because your system (CTE) could hit the pocket without them. In fact there were heated exchanges over that very point.
Has your view changed? Am I misremembering? Am I misunderstanding now?
I know this is off-topic, so I'm just asking - not looking for a new debate.
pj
chgo
You need to know whether a shot is a thick or thin cut. I'm pretty sure I would have never said otherwise because without that you don't know which part of the system applies.
I might have said in a thread somewhere that you can cover all of the rails and all of the pockets. But, see, that's really a con because when you approach the CB, you're touching a rail and that's all I need.
^^ I was prob trying to trap you or someone else w/ that.
Last edited: