My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

Status
Not open for further replies.
ENGLISH!

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
...and why NO aiming method, NONE, can be legitimately called 'an objective aiming system'. (at least not at the time of this posting & probably never)

The following is a copy of a very brief exchange of posts (none of them mine) that 'explains' the issue in short order regarding the above, It is post #163 by Patrick Johnson in the since closed ‘Millions of Views’ thread by John Barton.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8pack
How many different potting angles are there in pool?
How many possible shots are there with PRO1?

JB Cases:
Probably millions

8pack:
Millions of angles..
0 to 90 and after that I would say your lucks going to run out.

Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo


This thread…My thread… is in accordance with what I am allowed per Mr. Wilson's directions to me & at my request comfirmed to me in PM & by Mike Howerton. (Please See Mr. Wilson’s Post at the end that explains my restrictions & allowances.)

In accordance with the wishes of the CTE advocates to not mix advocacy with objections...

This thread is NOT for any advocacy of CTE or ANY so called 'objective' aiming system or method.

It is also NOT for ANY argument as to how or why some say that CTE is an objective aiming system or method.

CTE advocates want no ‘encumbering dissension’ in their threads that advocate CTE… supposedly so that those that want to 'discuss' it & 'learn' about it can do so without ‘distractions & clutter’.

SO... this is in the same vein, but in reverse. It is ONLY for those that wish to make points as to why CTE & ANY so called Objective Aiming System or Method can NOT be such.

That is so that those on the fence can focus on the message here & NOT be distracted nor encumbered regarding any further explanation that might be forthcoming to further support THIS position.

So... if the CTE advocates are not hypocritical, they will abide with my wishes for this thread with the same that they are now more or less demanding for 'their' threads & they will STAY OUT of this thread.

If I were to hazard a bet, I would bet that hypocrisy will rear it's ugly face here in this thread.

Best Wishes to ALL & Shoot Well Regardless of what Method You Use to Align Your Shots.
Rick

PS1 This original post is merely to show where Patrick Johnson made a concise & very common sense point of very simple logic that is consistent with science as to WHY factually...aiming methods, including CTE, can NOT be an ‘objective aiming “system” or method. Please read, see, & understand what Patrick is saying with an open, rational, logical, common sense, non science bending mind set & attitude.

PS2 If anyone wishes to buy & try CTE, they should certainly do so, but should just know that it is not a magic ‘objective aiming system’ or method but requires one’s subjective analysis, interpretation, & hence input in the execution of the shots at hand & that takes time to build such based on the different types of visual perceptions dictated by the CTE approach.


Per Mr. Wilson in post #61 of the since closed “Millions of Views” Thread by John Barton:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wilson
English.....

So here we are.
I'm ofering just this very last opportunity for this to find a happy ending.

Here's the deal. You are not banned ( yet ) and may POST in threads that YOU create in regard to aiming discussions.

YOU may NOT post in anyone else's thread nor reply to anyone's posts in any aiming conversation thread that YOU did not create.

You may start threads and an one that wishes to participate in your conversation may do so.

Any variance from this will result in a permanent ban from AZB.
There won't be any more peace offers.

Dave



PLEASE NOTE: At my request, Mike Howerton has reviewed this original thread opening post & has said that he has no problem with it as long as any comments remain "polite".

I sincerely hope that everyone will abide by Mr. Howerton's wishes & indeed his 'demands'.

In fact, I wish the entire board would remain civil & polite.
 
Hello English, and thank you for contributing your thoughts! I'm hoping for an amicable and constructive discussion. :)

I have one simple question for starters. Take a given shot, assuming a reasonably straight stroke, that is exactly a half-ball hit to a pocket. Is that shot an "objective" shot in pool? Is objectivity even possible in the game of pool outside of the aiming discussions?

Thanks
Monte
 
mohrt said:
Hello English, and thank you for contributing your thoughts! I'm hoping for an amicable and constructive discussion. :)

I have one simple question for starters. Take a given shot, assuming a reasonably straight stroke, that is exactly a half-ball hit to a pocket. Is that shot an "objective" shot in pool? Is objectivity even possible in the game of pool outside of the aiming discussions?

Thanks
Monte
Click to expand...

Monty,

Did you read my post?

What you want is not the purpose of this thread.

The purpose here is NOT to redo again the same tired back & forth with you guys.

You guys do not want any dissension in 'your' advocating threads.

Well it is the same here. This thread is for anyone that wants to post about why so called 'objective aiming systems' or methods can NOT be such.

If you would like to have another try at our previously unproductive Pm conversations, I am willing to try that in PM, again, but I see it as a bad idea to do so here & 'invite' others to disrupt it.

So... I will PM you with my answer to your question & we can proceed in PM if you really want to have a 'discussion'.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
ENGLISH! said:
...and why NO aiming method, NONE, can be legitimately called 'an objective aiming system'. (at least not at the time of this posting & probably never)

The following is a copy of a very brief exchange of posts (none of them mine) that 'explains' the issue in short order regarding the above, It is post #163 by Patrick Johnson in the since closed ‘Millions of Views’ thread by John Barton.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8pack
How many different potting angles are there in pool?
How many possible shots are there with PRO1?

JB Cases:
Probably millions

8pack:
Millions of angles..
0 to 90 and after that I would say your lucks going to run out.

Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo


This thread…My thread… is in accordance with what I am allowed per Mr. Wilson's directions to me & at my request comfirmed to me in PM & by Mike Howerton. (Please See Mr. Wilson’s Post at the end that explains my restrictions & allowances.)

In accordance with the wishes of the CTE advocates to not mix advocacy with objections...

This thread is NOT for any advocacy of CTE or ANY so called 'objective' aiming system or method.

It is also NOT for ANY argument as to how or why some say that CTE is an objective aiming system or method.

CTE advocates want no ‘encumbering dissension’ in their threads that advocate CTE… supposedly so that those that want to 'discuss' it & 'learn' about it can do so without ‘distractions & clutter’.

SO... this is in the same vein, but in reverse. It is ONLY for those that wish to make points as to why CTE & ANY so called Objective Aiming System or Method can NOT be such.

That is so that those on the fence can focus on the message here & NOT be distracted nor encumbered regarding any further explanation that might be forthcoming to further support THIS position.

So... if the CTE advocates are not hypocritical, they will abide with my wishes for this thread with the same that they are now more or less demanding for 'their' threads & they will STAY OUT of this thread.

If I were to hazard a bet, I would bet that hypocrisy will rear it's ugly face here in this thread.

Best Wishes to ALL & Shoot Well Regardless of what Method You Use to Align Your Shots.
Rick

PS1 This original post is merely to show where Patrick Johnson made a concise & very common sense point of very simple logic that is consistent with science as to WHY factually...aiming methods, including CTE, can NOT be an ‘objective aiming “system” or method. Please read, see, & understand what Patrick is saying with an open, rational, logical, common sense, non science bending mind set & attitude.

PS2 If anyone wishes to buy & try CTE, they should certainly do so, but should just know that it is not a magic ‘objective aiming system’ or method but requires one’s subjective analysis, interpretation, & hence input in the execution of the shots at hand & that takes time to build such based on the different types of visual perceptions dictated by the CTE approach.


Per Mr. Wilson in post #61 of the since closed “Millions of Views” Thread by John Barton:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wilson
English.....

So here we are.
I'm ofering just this very last opportunity for this to find a happy ending.

Here's the deal. You are not banned ( yet ) and may POST in threads that YOU create in regard to aiming discussions.

YOU may NOT post in anyone else's thread nor reply to anyone's posts in any aiming conversation thread that YOU did not create.

You may start threads and an one that wishes to participate in your conversation may do so.

Any variance from this will result in a permanent ban from AZB.
There won't be any more peace offers.

Dave



PLEASE NOTE: At my request, Mike Howerton has reviewed this original thread opening post & has said that he has no problem with it as long as any comments remain "polite".

I sincerely hope that everyone will abide by Mr. Howerton's wishes & indeed his 'demands'.

In fact, I wish the entire board would remain civil & polite.
Click to expand...

Rick,why bother these guys. They see something that most cant,and never will .
When you find yourself thinking what the hell, and it happens a lot, time to let it go.

You cant fight crazy with logic, cause logic went out the window a long time ago.;)

That system is probably 5 percent objective and thats only if you can see real good.:smile: Thats just my opinion though.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Monty,



Did you read my post?



What you want is not the purpose of this thread.



The purpose here is NOT to redo again the same tired back & forth with you guys.



You guys do not want any dissension in 'your' advocating threads.



Well it is the same here. This thread is for anyone that wants to post about why so called 'objective aiming systems' or methods can NOT be such.



If you would like to have another try at our previously unproductive Pm conversations, I am willing to try that in PM, again, but I see it as a bad idea to do so here & 'invite' others to disrupt it.



So... I will PM you with my answer to your question & we can proceed in PM if you really want to have a 'discussion'.



Best Wishes to You & ALL.
Click to expand...


Wow. Yes I read the post, I was trying to start at the heart of the matter, objectivity. I'll just not post, I don't see how this will work as I don't really understand your reaction to what I thought was appropriate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
8pack said:
Rick,why bother these guys. They see something that most cant,and never will .
When you find yourself thinking what the hell, and it happens a lot, time to let it go.

You cant fight crazy with logic, cause logic went out the window a long time ago.;)

That system is probably 5 percent objective and thats only if you can see real good.:smile: Thats just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

Anthony,

How many posts have you made in the aiming forum just the past few days.

But this is not about them. They are actually not invited & indeed uninvited, because it is like you say regarding logic.

This is for anyone that wants to make a point as to why any so called objective aiming system or method simply can not be such, as PJ did in the post that I quoted.

He's basically brought the crux of why there can not be an objective aiming system or method to simple & concise, logical 'light'.

The need for a sufficient number of visual markers is too great to be had even though the numbers are not astronomical.

If there is not enough different objective markers to cover the required angles then subjective interpretation & execution must come into play just as it does for ALL methods.

Best Wishes to You & All.
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
Wow. Yes I read the post, I was trying to start at the heart of the matter, objectivity. I'll just not post, I don't see how this will work as I don't really understand your reaction to what I thought was appropriate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Looked appropriate to me. Besides, according to Mike in the following quote, you have the right to post.


"You may start threads and an one that wishes to participate in your conversation may do so."
 
I would contend that your interpretation:

English said:
... as to WHY factually...aiming methods, including CTE, can NOT be an ‘objective aiming “system” or method.
Click to expand...

of Patrick Johnson's short dissertation on the number of cut shot alignments (75) that are necessary to make any shot on a standard (I assume) 4-1/2' X 9' table, with whatever pocket size he posited, as a statement that "Fractional aiming systems cannot be objective", is bass ackwards.

The correct interpretation is: Since the Fractional Aiming systems that are known to us define fewer than 75 cut shot alignments, those systems cannot be objective.

However, if there was a Fractional Aiming system that defined 75 or more cut shot alignments, then I believe he would allow that it might very well be an objective system.

Notwithstanding, you still have to get past Stan's assertion that CTE, in particular, is not a Fractional Aiming system.

But wait, there's more... You're engaged here in proving the negative about these systems, and, again, CTE in particular. That goal is flawed, from the beginning, because in order to prove the negative, you must have a complete specification of what you are trying to refute... and the specification is incomplete (again, Stan would assert otherwise).

So, I, for one, don't see how the goal will be accomplished...


But, "may the odds be ever in your favor!"

:wink:

- s.west
 
mohrt said:
Hello English, and thank you for contributing your thoughts! I'm hoping for an amicable and constructive discussion. :)

I have one simple question for starters. Take a given shot, assuming a reasonably straight stroke, that is exactly a half-ball hit to a pocket. Is that shot an "objective" shot in pool? Is objectivity even possible in the game of pool outside of the aiming discussions?

Thanks
Monte
Click to expand...

First, there is no such thing as a 1/2 ball hit ...it's impossible to do so. So, In thinking you are hitting a 1/2 a ball makes in subjective.

Second, just for arguement, how do you determine if it's a 1/2 ball hit? That's what also makes it subjective.

Objectivity is achieved when the person is removed from the equation. When the person has no influence on the outcome.
 
Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo

So you like this post by PJ ?
LOL, the big flaw in this in regards to CTE is that CTE is a center pocket system, no pocket slop. That changes things, sorry.
 
ENGLISH! said:
...and why NO aiming method, NONE, can be legitimately called 'an objective aiming system'. (at least not at the time of this posting & probably never)

The following is a copy of a very brief exchange of posts (none of them mine) that 'explains' the issue in short order regarding the above, It is post #163 by Patrick Johnson in the since closed ‘Millions of Views’ thread by John Barton.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8pack
How many different potting angles are there in pool?
How many possible shots are there with PRO1?

JB Cases:
Probably millions

8pack:
Millions of angles..
0 to 90 and after that I would say your lucks going to run out.

Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo


This thread…My thread… is in accordance with what I am allowed per Mr. Wilson's directions to me & at my request comfirmed to me in PM & by Mike Howerton. (Please See Mr. Wilson’s Post at the end that explains my restrictions & allowances.)

In accordance with the wishes of the CTE advocates to not mix advocacy with objections...

This thread is NOT for any advocacy of CTE or ANY so called 'objective' aiming system or method.

It is also NOT for ANY argument as to how or why some say that CTE is an objective aiming system or method.

CTE advocates want no ‘encumbering dissension’ in their threads that advocate CTE… supposedly so that those that want to 'discuss' it & 'learn' about it can do so without ‘distractions & clutter’.

SO... this is in the same vein, but in reverse. It is ONLY for those that wish to make points as to why CTE & ANY so called Objective Aiming System or Method can NOT be such.

That is so that those on the fence can focus on the message here & NOT be distracted nor encumbered regarding any further explanation that might be forthcoming to further support THIS position.

So... if the CTE advocates are not hypocritical, they will abide with my wishes for this thread with the same that they are now more or less demanding for 'their' threads & they will STAY OUT of this thread.

If I were to hazard a bet, I would bet that hypocrisy will rear it's ugly face here in this thread.

Best Wishes to ALL & Shoot Well Regardless of what Method You Use to Align Your Shots.
Rick

PS1 This original post is merely to show where Patrick Johnson made a concise & very common sense point of very simple logic that is consistent with science as to WHY factually...aiming methods, including CTE, can NOT be an ‘objective aiming “system” or method. Please read, see, & understand what Patrick is saying with an open, rational, logical, common sense, non science bending mind set & attitude.

PS2 If anyone wishes to buy & try CTE, they should certainly do so, but should just know that it is not a magic ‘objective aiming system’ or method but requires one’s subjective analysis, interpretation, & hence input in the execution of the shots at hand & that takes time to build such based on the different types of visual perceptions dictated by the CTE approach.


Per Mr. Wilson in post #61 of the since closed “Millions of Views” Thread by John Barton:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wilson
English.....

So here we are.
I'm ofering just this very last opportunity for this to find a happy ending.

Here's the deal. You are not banned ( yet ) and may POST in threads that YOU create in regard to aiming discussions.

YOU may NOT post in anyone else's thread nor reply to anyone's posts in any aiming conversation thread that YOU did not create.

You may start threads and an one that wishes to participate in your conversation may do so.

Any variance from this will result in a permanent ban from AZB.
There won't be any more peace offers.

Dave



PLEASE NOTE: At my request, Mike Howerton has reviewed this original thread opening post & has said that he has no problem with it as long as any comments remain "polite".

I sincerely hope that everyone will abide by Mr. Howerton's wishes & indeed his 'demands'.

In fact, I wish the entire board would remain civil & polite.
Click to expand...


Well I am not entirely sure what the premise here is but since I was quoted above I will take a shot at it.

If I understand it right your premise is that no system is objective and can't be called objective. Meaning that merely by saying a system is objective then it's implied that it's 100% objective.

Ok, well I guess you should clarify what objective means in the context of an aiming system first.

I will clarify what it means to me as I understand it. Objective to me means measurement by way of specific fixed line, points or areas between solid objects, in the case, the balls. It means using these references in conjunction with explicit rules to form a decision upon which to rely for laying my cue stick down to take a shot in pool.

The task, also known as an objective, is to choose a line that will work to pocket an object ball if the cue ball is sent accurately down the chosen line.

In order to choose that line the shooter has a spectrum of methods to use.

To me that spectrum goes from pure guessing on one end, what I called purely subjective, to measured choice on the other end, what I call objective for the purpose of this discussion.

----------------------------------

To give an example from cutting wood. Subjective would be to merely guess at the cut line to divide a four foot piece into two equal pieces. Sometimes you would be right and most times slightly off. The more you could practice the closer you would be. This would be a subjective use of judgement to obtain a mostly inaccurate result.

But if you had a tool or some other object to use that was marked at exactly two feet you could use that and be perfect every time. That would be an objective use of a tool to obtain an accurate result.

So, back to pool.

Obviously we can take a straight in shot and say that there is no guessing required as to what the shot line is. In addition to center to center the shooter also has both edges of both balls to use as guides. There is only one place from behind the cue ball where these points line up. You can use a camera with grid lines super-imposed to capture this. The camera will only find ONE SPOT in the entire room, where the cueball is in the foreground and the object ball is in the background where the centers and the edges and the pocket all line up perfectly. This would be an example of using objective references to align the camera to the balls. Substitute the eyes for the camera and the result will be the same because the physical reference points are so strong.

Almost every person on Earth, whether they have ever played pool or not, can find the shot line in the above example of a straight in shot. It requires no experience, no judgement, no practice, no bias. That doesn't mean they can MAKE the shot but they can certainly pick out the shot line easily with no guessing. That is an objective way to achieve the objective.

---------------------------------------

But, if we shift the cue ball six inches to the right now the task of finding the shot line becomes much harder due to the fact that the center of the ball and the actual contact point is offset from center. Now the shooter must either guess at the shot line or use whatever references are available to him and whatever techniques he knows to choose a shot line. And it is here where the methods can be purely subjective, in effect, guessing based on a feeling of correctness, OR they can be objective, chosen because of the use of tools that are known to be reliable for the task.

Thus, when I personally say that a method of aim is objective I am referring to the side of the spectrum where I use a reliable tool to produce repeatable and dependable results. Use of such tools has improved my ability to find the shot line accurately on almost every shot I face. As I understand the word objective as defined above I have personally concluded that when the word is used to describe the Center to Edge method of aiming it is correctly and accurately used.

I would put the percentage of objectivity when using CTE at 99% for experienced users and at 75% for new users to the system because of the paradigm shift from the mostly guessing subjective methods taught otherwise. CTE requires that the shooter train himself to adopt new perspectives when aligning their body in preparation to lay the stick down on a chosen shot line. This requirement is disorienting for players who are used to the subjective end of the spectrum. Just as with any tool practice is required to improve dexterity.

But once a tool is mastered then the user knows how much easier it makes the job. This is not any different in my opinion and the results across many users prove it.
 
swest said:
The correct interpretation is: Since the Fractional Aiming systems that are known to us define fewer than 75 cut shot alignments, those systems cannot be objective.
Click to expand...
Actually, the correct interpretation is that no system we know of can objectively define more than a small fraction of necessary cut angles.

We can also logically surmise that no system that's simple enough to use while playing could.

pj
chgo
 
Increase vs. Decrease in Objectivity

Recently I performed a visual exercise geared towards increasing Objectivity.

1. If you know where you cue ball should arrive for the shot...even at a distance

2. If you imagine the arriving cue ball to seem the same perceived size as you perceive the object ball

3. Simply aim your cue ball through the center with your cue at the center of the proposed arriving cue ball.

4. You will have a parallax adjusted arrival for your cue ball and its very much on target with your picked arrival location. So in that way its very objective.

The caveat is you have to deliver, which is never objective, but each thing you do towards making yourself an objective non changing target lends to more assurance or objectivity that you will definitely make the shot. This includes elimination of the application of spin and a perfect delivery.

The increase in Objectivity has nothing to do with Aiming Systems only.
 
swest said:
I would contend that your interpretation:



of Patrick Johnson's short dissertation on the number of cut shot alignments (75) that are necessary to make any shot on a standard (I assume) 4-1/2' X 9' table, with whatever pocket size he posited, as a statement that "Fractional aiming systems cannot be objective", is bass ackwards.

The correct interpretation is: Since the Fractional Aiming systems that are known to us define fewer than 75 cut shot alignments, those systems cannot be objective.

However, if there was a Fractional Aiming system that defined 75 or more cut shot alignments, then I believe he would allow that it might very well be an objective system.

Notwithstanding, you still have to get past Stan's assertion that CTE, in particular, is not a Fractional Aiming system.

But wait, there's more... You're engaged here in proving the negative about these systems, and, again, CTE in particular. That goal is flawed, from the beginning, because in order to prove the negative, you must have a complete specification of what you are trying to refute... and the specification is incomplete (again, Stan would assert otherwise).

So, I, for one, don't see how the goal will be accomplished...


But, "may the odds be ever in your favor!"

:wink:

- s.west
Click to expand...

Hi Sam,

Thank you for your comments. Comments like yours is for what this thread is intended.

I can agree with you here.

The thing is that I am not attempting to 'prove' anything here.

I am merely offering this thread for like minds as yours to have a place to express themselves on the subject without the disruption of a dispute & being attacked for their understanding of the parameters involved.

That way those interested can read such without all of the dissension & distraction of the fanatical advocacy on the other side.

Thanks Again & Best Wishes,
Rick
 
Last edited:
duckie said:
First, there is no such thing as a 1/2 ball hit ...it's impossible to do so. So, In thinking you are hitting a 1/2 a ball makes in subjective.

Second, just for argument, how do you determine if it's a 1/2 ball hit? That's what also makes it subjective.

Objectivity is achieved when the person is removed from the equation. When the person has no influence on the outcome.
Click to expand...

Greg,

I appreciate your participation but my intention for this thread is not for the same old repetitive back & forth engagement with the 'advocates' & arguing the same internal points.

IMO there are objective matters that individuals can participate although sometimes with an IF qualifier.

That said, even if there was such a 'system' with enough objective markers it would still require subjective selection of which would be applicable to any given shot. So... in that regard you are certainly correct.

Thanks again, but please try to see my intentions to not engage in the same old same old same old of the back & forth with the 'advocates'.

There are other threads where that can be done if one so wishes to do so even though that is not what 'they' want there.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
since ghost ball and contact point to contact point aiming have infinite object ball cue ball relationships dont they cover all possible shots ????
 
cookie man said:
Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo

So you like this post by PJ ?
LOL, the big flaw in this in regards to CTE is that CTE is a center pocket system, no pocket slop. That changes things, sorry.
Click to expand...

Did you not read the part of my OP regarding what the intentions & purpose are for this thread? If not, please do so by reading the entire OP.

It is the same of which has been said by CTEers that they want for their threads, a place for LIKE MINDS.

There should be no disagreement expressed here & no dissension nor distraction for the purpose of this thread. which is for comments on why there can be no such thing as an objective aiming system or method.

I sincerely hope that you can not be hypocritical & so comply with my wishes & intentions for this thread.

Thank You in Advance & Best Wishes to You & All.
 
bbb said:
since ghost ball and contact point to contact point aiming have infinite object ball cue ball relationships dont they cover all possible shots ????
Click to expand...

Yes. The issue as pertains to the thread subject is one of objectivity vs. subjectivity.

Ghost ball covers everything but it is at the subjective end of the spectrum as far as an aiming method goes.

Contact point to contact point is very difficult to consistently estimate as finding and holding a point on a sphere is incredibly hard.

If we had a laser that was set up to project a contact point we could test how accurate a person could be in holding it. I personally think it's much easier to find the CP on the object ball by dividing the ball in half mentally using the pocket as a guide when and if I want to do that. As for finding the CP on the cueball facing away from me, I can't personally do it consistently.
 
bbb said:
since ghost ball and contact point to contact point aiming have infinite object ball cue ball relationships dont they cover all possible shots ????
Click to expand...
Ghost ball and contact point aren't objective targets. You learn to visualize them accurately through practice - like all aiming methods.

pj
chgo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top