Yep, certainly nothing wrong with your opinion.
I don't think it's exactly like other fractional aiming systems though, none of the transition points fall on even boundaries of 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 ball shots. And just like with Pro1 or 90/90, you don't have to visualize what a certain hit looks like and adjust from there but can instead just align using some discrete points on the balls and perform a consistent movement to align correctly to the shot. But like the fractional systems, and 90/90, CTE, Pro1, etc., they all rely on some sort of breakdown where you have to switch from one initial alignment to another.
For others who may be interested in this material, to be fair there are only a few pages that reference some of Dr. Dave's materials, primary centered around the 30 degree rule. Then Ekkes uses that information to build a wide variety of cue ball tracks and information that can help you predict and control where the cueball goes from various shot angles. And while Freddy or Brumback can certainly explain banking itself in an expert manner, the strength of Ekkes' material is in relation to the system itself, and how you can use the same alignments and system with banks as you do with normal shots. Certainly more advanced banking concepts would have to be covered elsewhere.
I just met someone the other night, decent player, and we started talking about aiming and such. I showed him what I was doing, had him stand behind me, and explained everything. Even after whacking in a bunch of shots from crazy angles, shooting maximum english shots from up table, etc., all with SEE adjustments, at the end of the day he was happy with his GB-type aiming that he learned.
That's what is great about the variety of methods we have to arrive at the correct spot and the wealth of information available today vs. 20 years ago. I can't visualize a ghost ball very well, or a spot 1 1/8" away from the contact point, especially at certain backward angles. But because of my experience and hitting a bunch of balls, I got pretty good at judging how to make balls from all kinds of angles, how to compensate for english, etc., and I can ignore all of these systems and alignments and still run racks the old way. I just like the confidence and consistency I gain with the systematic approach, and the fact I can take 2 - 3 seconds aiming a straight in shot and the same 2 - 3 seconds aiming a 50 degree back cut with inside english and it's really no different to me at all.
Scott
