Niels just released this video about aiming.
Niels Feijen's approach to aiming with and without side spin
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
I think he makes too big a distinction between how to aim no-spin vs. spin shots. I'd teach using the same method for both with specific adjustments for spin.
I like that he emphasizes rote practice and keeping it simple.
pj
chgo
I like that he emphasizes rote practice and keeping it simple.
pj
chgo
ALL PROS know the ghost ball system.
Niels also proved to me you are not too old to change your mechanics or stance.
He used to have his arm way outside of his right eye .
He shoots like a real European now .
He is one of the most amazing players ever. He is practically blind in one one .
He's the Joe Frazier of pool. World champion with one good eye .
Great to see he has YT channel now. Thanks for the post .
Niels also proved to me you are not too old to change your mechanics or stance.
He used to have his arm way outside of his right eye .
He shoots like a real European now .
He is one of the most amazing players ever. He is practically blind in one one .
He's the Joe Frazier of pool. World champion with one good eye .
Great to see he has YT channel now. Thanks for the post .
Last edited:
I'm subscribed to his YT channel. I like his videos.
One thing that did get my attention in the aiming video was he never mentioned
cut induced throw of the OB when using the ghost ball aiming method using
no spin.
John
One thing that did get my attention in the aiming video was he never mentioned
cut induced throw of the OB when using the ghost ball aiming method using
no spin.
John
The dry, fast conditions they play in; maybe it's a forgotten part of shot dynamics. IOW either nothing throws or they shoot so gently everything throws and they can't tell.
I am glad to see that those of you who have watched Niels and his instructions on how to use the ghost ball for aiming are pleased.
I think you should utilize that method at every opportunity.
Speaking for myself, I never could visualize a ghost ball down there. BUT, I can visualize the require lines to accomplish the CTE method of aiming. That doesn't make my visualization any better or any worse than yours...it just satisfies my needs.
Obviously the ghost ball works for a lot of people. Obviously Poolology works for a lot of people. So do all the other aiming methods out there including the one I think is more precise than all of them, CTE. However the final decision on all that has to be made by the individual shooters themselves.
Now that some of you, (who I refer to as CTE detractors) have found something that satisfies your needs, I hope that you will just leave my method alone and stop trashing on it.
The advocates of CTE will be just fine without your negativity, while we keep right on promoting it and its benefits.
All negativity toward CTE from here on will be reported by me to the Boss of this site. I trust that any negativity by me toward YOUR chosen methods for aiming will be reported also by you. Thank you gentlemen.
Kindly refer to the "sticky" posted by the Boss of this site in here about this:
I think you should utilize that method at every opportunity.
Speaking for myself, I never could visualize a ghost ball down there. BUT, I can visualize the require lines to accomplish the CTE method of aiming. That doesn't make my visualization any better or any worse than yours...it just satisfies my needs.
Obviously the ghost ball works for a lot of people. Obviously Poolology works for a lot of people. So do all the other aiming methods out there including the one I think is more precise than all of them, CTE. However the final decision on all that has to be made by the individual shooters themselves.
Now that some of you, (who I refer to as CTE detractors) have found something that satisfies your needs, I hope that you will just leave my method alone and stop trashing on it.
The advocates of CTE will be just fine without your negativity, while we keep right on promoting it and its benefits.
All negativity toward CTE from here on will be reported by me to the Boss of this site. I trust that any negativity by me toward YOUR chosen methods for aiming will be reported also by you. Thank you gentlemen.
Kindly refer to the "sticky" posted by the Boss of this site in here about this:
Last edited:
'Nag'ativity might be a TOS offense but you seem to be implying CTE is impeccable. ??? Questions and disagreements if they are responded to at all are usually met with a truckload of CTE facts and quantitative rhetoric. FWIW I don't look for the ghost ball per se. Properly executed equal angle (opposites) aiming for instance, provides the ghost base by default.
I think the gist of this thread and the Garreth Potts aim post to name the most recent is along the lines of the keep it simple principle. They offer good calibration references for the fanatics as well.
CTE, OTOH might provide quickie lines for well versed shooters but it seems at this stage, mastery of pool is prerequisite. Quickie lines is cool shit but only if they correlate to skills you already have.
I don't think you can prevent the challenges to your reason or even opinions - yours and ours, come to think of it, let alone mandate a moratorium on unfavorable responses. AFAIC CTE has yet to prove its merit so I am compelled to keep questioning. Otherwise, CTE simply belongs in the classifieds.
The Boss here has issued a posted warning concerning Aiming comments.
He may have a different opinion than yours.
Your comment in bold has been reported.
Some logic here. You guys take snippets you find arguable and go on the offensive. If you cannot address the merits of hyper aiming, (cte) while insisting buying in will solve all, then I'm forced to conclude it's simply marketing. Quick example while I remember; CTE claims 3 lines do it yet the truth videos demonstrate that specific adjustments are required to produce the shots covered. This says CTE is a way to cinch certain shots. Asking about this yields insults and or a continuance of the marketing aspect. No answers.
What you are "forced to conclude" is quite okay with me.
On the other hand (using your own words)….I am "forced to conclude" that you guys also take snippets you find arguable and go on the offensive.
Be that as it may, the merits of CTE aiming and how to accomplish it have been explained and demonstrated over and over and over for years.
The appearance of Stan Shuffett's Encyclopedic publication concerning these things is now available. This book has settled any and all questions in print, once and for all, and is being well accepted by hundreds of players. You can avail yourself of this as well, if you so desire.
Back and forths about "this and that" have become pointless. You guys interpret things your way...we interpret things another way. We are under no obligation to provide any "answers" (your words again) for you.
The Boss of this site, Mr. Mike Howerton, has posted rules concerning this. This site is HIS and his alone. It is not your site, it is not my site. His rules are the LAW in here.
Until he issues an edict ordering me to stop reporting negative comments about ANY aiming system, I will be on the watch for those and will report. I would encourage you to do likewise. That will ensure a probability of peace and quiet in this forum. Discussions are, of course, legitimate...negativity, however cleverly disguised, is not. That is according to him...not according to Low500. His "sticky" post concerning this is right here for all to read and then conduct themselves accordingly.
Anything the Boss, Mr. Howerton, chooses to do about any of that rests with him...not with me and not with you or anyone else who visits this facility.
To play rotation pool at a high level, most shots will be hit with spin. If your system is to be complete, you will have to account for this. Unfortunately, no spin compensation system has ever been made that is even close to good enough to deserve the term "system". Some very admirable attempts have been made, but sadly the above is the case. All cues have different amount of deflection. All cloths are different. And even if you had a cue that was a "standard" and every game was played on exactly the same cloth, brand new there is still the problem of throw being different with speed. So a system like "backhand" english, which is often applied to various aiming systems, won't work because inside and outside english throw the ball opposite ways. Backhand english only works on very fast, close shots, where throw is not so much of a factor and curve isn't either. It only compensates for deflection, not curve and throw. You COULD have various bridge-lengths for speeds and distances and outside/inside, but then it quickly becomes so complicated that you completely overload your brain keeping track of it all.
Rote repetition will always be a part of pool excellence. Though many people try to sell miracle cure-alls, no such thing exists. Aiming systems are not worthless in teaching, however I have a very hard time imagining playing A-level pool with an aiming system used on every shot, without significant, experience based compensations for throw, swerve and deflection. When we're talking pro-level I think it's absolutely impossible. There are just too many variables to consider in throw, swerve and speed.
Rote repetition will always be a part of pool excellence. Though many people try to sell miracle cure-alls, no such thing exists. Aiming systems are not worthless in teaching, however I have a very hard time imagining playing A-level pool with an aiming system used on every shot, without significant, experience based compensations for throw, swerve and deflection. When we're talking pro-level I think it's absolutely impossible. There are just too many variables to consider in throw, swerve and speed.
Whose words are one to use?
This is what I've learned of CTE. It references all pool to some simple albeit unlikely constants. Not all the assertions make sense and much of what has been demonstrated has to be uniquely calibrated to fit the method - to the degree that by Stan's current word, CTE or maybe Pro1 is not an aiming system. Pretty cool safety there. There is still a strong sense of infomercial to the recorded spiel as well. And like I said earlier, quickie lines seem to be the heart of the method. Nothing wrong with those except when they require adaptive mods that so far are situation specific. Just like real pool yes, except real pool is a constant. No further reduction is even possible.
So, Pro 1 is a shooting method? As such, it requires perceptual, independent eye, and stroke adjustments, and so far not global ones either.
Ghost ball and Garreth Potts' <find the stick line> have no such requirements and are free. Pools complexities are addressed by careful observation, and repetition of tasks. So far the best way for a human to acquire manual skills. Also free give or take.
This is true, of course, but it's not even part of the real "debate". The heart of the "debate" is whether it's possible for any aiming system to fully define more than a few pool shots (for instance, the major fractional alignments) even using nothing but center ball.
Hint: it's not possible.
pj
chgo
I think for most purposes subdividing down to 1/8ths is sufficient for discussion, as in "I needed about a 7/8th hit". Of course the fullness needs to be much finer to actually put the ball in the pocket for a long shot. A ball off the spot to a head pocket should have about one degree accuracy and that is a millimeter left-right on a nearly full hit.
And I agree with you about regular humans, but a friend of mine divided the hits into 64ths. He knew the cut angle for each 64th. I know this because I helped him program his calculator (about 1983) so that he could calculate arctangents of lines based on diamond crossings. He calculated the angle the OB formed with a rail, the angle the cue ball formed with a rail, did the subtraction, and the 25 degree cut would tell him he needed a 37/64th-full hit. He was an MBA and he played a lot better than I did. I wonder how much accuracy he actually achieved with his method and how much of it was from playing intensely for years. He played 100% on every shot -- never knocked the balls around idly for fun.