Correct (to a degree). You still have the CB edge which is obviously objective. A, B, C or 1/8 on the OB are definitely not objective. To me, one tip to the right edge of the OB is just as objective as the 1/8th spot of the OB.
Objective Points of Aim
- Thread starter Gerry Williams
- Start date
Correct (to a degree). You still have the CB edge which is obviously objective. A, B, C or 1/8 on the OB are definitely not objective. To me, one tip to the right edge of the OB is just as objective as the 1/8th spot of the OB.
full splice
Banned
I would be happy with a system that takes away 95% of the guess work out of a difficult shot :smile:
Maybe Stan can chime in and give some insight. I believe when executed correctly, CTE/Pro One will take you to the geometric shot line for the given bank. From there, variances inherent to bank shots and table conditions would need to be addressed by the shooter, such as adding a touch of outside english on certain cut angle banks. Those come with practice. It is a major advantage to objectively start with the shot line. In my experience, most shots go with center cueball and pocket speed (or just soft speed.)
Last edited:
We all know that spin and speed affect banking - but Pro One does offer the proper initial alignment.
As for 1/8, A, B and C not being objective - I would have to disagree, with practice they have become very objective for me.
Now obviously it becomes more challenging over distance - 1/8 is difficult to pick up over 8 feet but then it might be time to play safe
Cheers,
Gerry
As for 1/8, A, B and C not being objective - I would have to disagree, with practice they have become very objective for me.
Now obviously it becomes more challenging over distance - 1/8 is difficult to pick up over 8 feet but then it might be time to play safe
Cheers,
Gerry
Yes, I agree with this. The starting point is the proper shot line.
Speed and spin are additional factors that are considered for any given shot.
Stan Shuffett
We all know that spin and speed affect banking - but Pro One does offer the proper initial alignment.
As for 1/8, A, B and C not being objective - I would have to disagree, with practice they have become very objective for me.
Now obviously it becomes more challenging over distance - 1/8 is difficult to pick up over 8 feet but then it might be time to play safe
Cheers,
Gerry
Also, well said!
Stan Shuffett
mohrt, this is what I meant if it isn't exactly how you understood it. LOL I'm just being "picky" about the objective thing before duckie jumps in with some stupid statement. CTE/Pro One is a center pocket system (quoting Stan) for regular shots. You don't have to account for throw or other factors by apply a little more cut, a little less or english and it is independent of speed. Therefore, technically, this is objective. Banks are not purely objective in the same manner. CTE/Pro One gets you close to the pocket but requires an adjustment in speed, vertical cue placement and/or english to make the shot. As with any banking, this is going to vary a bit table to table. When the "geometric angle" can be off as much as a diamond on some tables, by itself, this is only a part of the solution. When you take a close look at John Brumback and his banking technique, all that means very little. I am in no way attempting to demean the value of CTE/Pro One when used for banking, just offering some clarification.
Good point. I picked up John's DVD and he suggests over cutting the ball slightly with stun to make the pocket play larger. You can use CTE/Pro One to get to that over cut position.
I do this all the time when faced with a bank shot unless I have to play it soft for position.
Great discussion guys!
I do this all the time when faced with a bank shot unless I have to play it soft for position.
Great discussion guys!
Gerry, that's exactly right. I spent a day with John Brumback at his house and watched him a lot at this year's DCC Tournament. There are a lot of times, with his system, that he over cuts more than slightly. I'm not sure John can always explain exactly what he does but it is clear he sure knows what he is doing. One thing I observed with John that amazed me most. His stroke is near flawless and his repeatability of the speed he hits shots with is uncanny. I believe it is that repeatable speed control that is the core of his amazing banking ability.
I am 100% heading to DCC next year - I went to see Stan the week after this year - DOH!
I have no clue how to play straight pool, one pocket or banks but I have a year to figure it out.
I have no clue how to play straight pool, one pocket or banks but I have a year to figure it out.
Listen to the new champ! :thumbup:
Gerry, I hope you do, will looking forward to meeting you in person and hoisting a few beers together. Of course, you being Canadian, I'll only be able to drink 1 to your 2 or on a good day, 2 to your 3 at best. LOL
full splice
Banned
<<< is now officially retired from posting about aiming systems :thumbup:
Last edited:
Hi ya Champ!
With postings like this one from you, your retirement from aiming systems can come none too soon: "There are only 9 lines of aim and a grand total of 17, if you dont count the straight in twice."
I disagree slightly. What it boils down to for me is what happens on the table. The balls lay there and can only be moved by the shooter. So if you have a series of shots that you use as a test then you can measure pretty easily your improvement.
When Gerry and others put up videos of themselves making what most consider to be "testers" in competition and tough shots otherwise then any person can try to follow suit using whatever aiming method they know of and see if they can duplicate the performance.
To me this is the objective reality of the situation. I agree that anyone who CAN make all the shots using a different method has found something that works equally well for them. However Gerry and Stan Duke and Mohrt and others (NOT ME) are setting performance bechmarks that must be met or surpassed to say that another method is as good or better. And this only serves to help everyone who is interested in applying a systematic approach to aiming to their game.
I have been tested in the pool room by those who think it's BS. They have set up shots and watched me put them in the hole easily. I ask them to try and trap me and set up the shots they think are tough and all open shots are generally made first try. (then I play for five dollars and miss hangers but that has another reason)
What Gerry means about objective points is very simply that you only use the balls you can see to aim with. And the more defined the reference the more useful it is. If I gave you a laser pointer and a steady rest for it and asked you point it at the contact point I can guarantee you that you would be slightly off the true contact point ever so slightly.
However if I asked you to point it at the edge of the ball then I can guarantee you that you would be dead on.
If I asked you point it at the center of the GB then I am sure that you would be off quite a lot.
GB center is an imagined space. Contact point is visualized spot on a real object. Edges are well defined and unmoving. A system that uses the edges and which then produces players with very accurate pocketing ability can be considered the best until such time as something else can be proven to equal or exceed it.
There must be a reason why the opponents of CTE and similar methods have thus far not put up any videos of them making tough shots, having high scores on shotmaking tests or beating the ghost at any game. I feel that reason is because what they are using to aim IS NOT working for them.