Shot Pictures and Aiming Systems

[cookie man]

Pivoting at the tip system? Sounds new. Neslie O'Hare did/does that.

Neslie O'Hare? Is this the young lady that stated in the infamous article about Pro's aiming that Efren taught her centers and edges.

 

[LAMas]

Neslie O'Hare? Is this the young lady that stated in the infamous article about Pro's aiming that Efren taught her centers and edges.

She's not so young today and puts the tip on the cloth 1/2 ball away from the edge of the OB on the line to the pocket the pivots from the tip with the stick over the CCB.


I saw that but maybe pre Efren.

 

[BC21]

She's not so young today and puts the tip on the cloth 1/2 ball away from the edge of the OB on the line to the pocket the pivots from the tip with the stick over the CCB.


I saw that but maybe pre Efren.

Yes.....she swings the cue from that tip placement to directly over ccb, which gives her the shot line using the ob as a background for the aim. It's a good way to use fractional aiming.

 

[JoeyInCali]

A ton of pros aim the tip to the very base of the cue ball
.
Some do it until the final stroke. Efren, Santos and Bustamante included.
Even on follow shots.

 

[BC21]

A ton of pros aim the tip to the very base of the cue ball
.
Some do it until the final stroke. Efren, Santos and Bustamante included.
Even on follow shots.

I've noticed that. I have a buddy that does the same thing.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I've noticed that. I have a buddy that does the same thing.

Efren himself told me, Busti's game went down when he stopped doing it.

The very base of the cue ball ( the darkest shadow ) is the true center of the cue ball.
It's also easier to see the cue ball in relation to the OB, with the cue tip out of the way

I saw an old video of Jose Parica playing. The announcer commented how odd it was that Jose was aiming the tip low almost all the time . Mike Sigel was the color commentator . it was odd that Sigel even said it was bad b/c it lead to miscues .
Years later, almost all pros do it .

 

[Dan White]

Efren himself told me, Busti's game went down when he stopped doing it.

The very base of the cue ball ( the darkest shadow ) is the true center of the cue ball.
It's also easier to see the cue ball in relation to the OB, with the cue tip out of the way

I saw an old video of Jose Parica playing. The announcer commented how odd it was that Jose was aiming the tip low almost all the time . Mike Sigel was the color commentator . it was odd that Sigel even said it was bad b/c it lead to miscues .
Years later, almost all pros do it .

I'm pretty sure it isn't just that the tip is on the cloth but also off to the side like extreme left or right side. I can't remember if that was one particular player, but he definitely moved the whole tip/shaft down to the cloth and off to the side.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I'm pretty sure it isn't just that the tip is on the cloth but also off to the side like extreme left or right side. I can't remember if that was one particular player, but he definitely moved the whole tip/shaft down to the cloth and off to the side.

Bustamante and Cicero Murphy.

 

[bbb]

Efren himself told me, Busti's game went down when he stopped doing it.

The very base of the cue ball ( the darkest shadow ) is the true center of the cue ball.
It's also easier to see the cue ball in relation to the OB, with the cue tip out of the way

I saw an old video of Jose Parica playing. The announcer commented how odd it was that Jose was aiming the tip low almost all the time . Mike Sigel was the color commentator . it was odd that Sigel even said it was bad b/c it lead to miscues .
Years later, almost all pros do it .

joey
with all due respect
why would efren share something negative about a fellow phillipino with you
just askin ?

 

[JoeyInCali]

joey
with all due respect
why would efren share something negative about a fellow phillipino with you
just askin ?

It wasn't negative . Busti was in a slump. Had not won a tournament for a while.
And he did tell Busti his opinion and Busti went back to his old ways.

 

[LAMas]

Efren often told his buddies "Spin".

 

[bbb]

It wasn't negative . Busti was in a slump. Had not won a tournament for a while.
And he did tell Busti his opinion and Busti went back to his old ways.

thanks for the reply......:thumbup:

 

[JB Cases]

I've come to realize more recently that I am confused as to what the purpose of an aiming system is. I know that sounds dumb, but hear me out for a minute. First a couple of definitions:

Shot Picture - This seems to be the terminology people use here on AZ. I believe the shot picture is the image you see that contains the shaft, cb, ob and pocket. Those items will form an angle with the ob located at that point where the angle is formed. I have always believed that this shot picture gets processed by the brain and when you shoot, it either becomes a success or a failure. By shooting enough successful shots, your brain automatically knows when a shot picture is correct, meaning the ball will be pocketed. (As a side note, this is why a good, straight stroke/alignment is so important. If your mechanics are not consistent, and you pocket the ball one time and then miss the next with the identical shot picture, your brain gets fuzzy feedback and isn't able to store clear information for recall later.)

Recognizing this shot picture is what people call playing by "feel" or "just knowing" when the shot looks right. It is NOT a guess but a recall of past success. It is no more a guess than saying you guessed your dog's name. You know your dog's name because it is committed to memory. You know the shot will be successful because you have committed it to memory (it looks right).

So my argument (and others here) is that the shot picture is what is really important for pocketing balls.

Aiming Systems - systems involve a set number of steps to be performed in order to allow the shooter to get the cue on the correct shot line. That's the theory, but is this really possible?

Someone the other day mentioned that Nick Varner swears by his own aiming system/method but it left me scratching my head. Let's say Nick is cutting a ball to the left and he's going to first aim the left edge of the ferrule at the right edge of the ob. OK, so now Nick is down on the shot using his system, but here's where the system fails. There is nothing to link that system or procedure to the correct shot picture that the brain is looking for. It seems like you have to know the correct shot picture even before you perform the steps required of your aiming system. In this way, when the cue is on the correct line the shot picture looks correct to your brain and you fire away. If this is the way it works, then isn't the aiming system irrelevant?

There is one system, Poolology, that manages to bridge the gap between an aiming system and the shot picture. In Poolology, the random alignment of the cb and ob are linked to the pocket through some math derived from the table rails. The system makes use of some clever geometry of circles and spits out a fractional hit that pockets the ball. Of course you sometimes have to interpolate between fractions, but that is not difficult if you have a good stroke.

It seems like Joe Tucker's system might do something similar but it does seem a bit cumbersome.

CTE users swear that CTE also is able to link the system steps to the correct shot picture, though for me personally let's just say the jury is still out on that.

So anyway this isn't a sales pitch for Poolology, but it does seem to be the exception to the rule. Now, for those who still don't follow what Poolology is all about, it is a way to speed up the learning process so that your brain starts understanding the shot pictures that are successful. Ultimately you won't need to calculate the fractions because you brain will already have stored the information. It is like a child sounding out words. Eventually they just know the word and don't need the crutch.

So back to Nick Varner. Is it possible that Nick is using his aiming system mostly as a method for focusing his attention and nerves on the task? In tennis I know it is important to keep you mind from wandering between points. Players are taught, for example, to adjust their strings or tie their laces before the next point. It clears the mind and keeps you in the present instead of worrying about the last bad shot. Is that really what Nick is doing or does he believe that his method actually puts the cue on the shot line without the necessity of a good shot picture? I think if we had a good hour to discuss this with him, he's going to say the shot picture is what really matters. It would be very interesting to probe him over that (well, maybe not to him).

Where am I going wrong on this?

Shot pictures are not in any way relevant to CTE use. This is the fundamental issue that confuses so many people.

When you combine the following three variables: Cueball position, Object ball position, table size there are literally millions if not billions of possible shots on the table. And that's for shots where the object ball is going directly into a pocket. Add in bank shots and you get billions more. It's literally impossible to have a shot picture for every shot.

What CTE does is give you a framework by which you can get to the shot line, the line the cueball MUST travel down to contact the object ball in the right position so as to send the object ball towards the hole on the correct line.

Often a CTE user will get into shooting position and have no idea whether the shot line is correct or not. There is no "shot picture" to refer to even if one wanted to which, honestly, a CTE user has zero need of.

Using CTE the shooter can take on shots that they have never practiced at all, never tried even once in their lives and have at worst a 50% chance to get on the shot line. And that's for a relatively inexperienced CTE user. For an experienced CTE user the chance to get on the correct shot line would be pretty much 100% even for the tiny percentage of shots that they have never attempted.

And if the experienced CTE user happened to not choose the right perception then on the second try they would choose the right one and from that point on the shot is theirs.

I have made shots from ridiculous positions because CTE is like having a set of four allen wrenches and one of them will work for any shot that I would face. Even after all these years I am still astounded at the shots I can make using CTE to aim with. Without CTE I miss by large margins when I miss. With CTE, when I pick the right preception (wrench) I miss by incredibly small margins if I miss. And with CTE, when I pick the wrong "wrench" the miss happens exactly the same way each time I use the same wrong wrench.

So all in all my opinion is that for CTE, and for 90/90 shot pictures are completely useless and would even be counterproductive possibly. The important thing for objective aiming systems is to learn to recognize and align to fairly concrete points between the balls which form the foundation of consistent application.

Proper input = consistent output.

 

[Low500]

Shot pictures are not in any way relevant to CTE use. This is the fundamental issue that confuses so many people.
When you combine the following three variables: Cueball position, Object ball position, table size there are literally millions if not billions of possible shots on the table. And that's for shots where the object ball is going directly into a pocket. Add in bank shots and you get billions more. It's literally impossible to have a shot picture for every shot.
What CTE does is give you a framework by which you can get to the shot line, the line the cueball MUST travel down to contact the object ball in the right position so as to send the object ball towards the hole on the correct line.
Often a CTE user will get into shooting position and have no idea whether the shot line is correct or not. There is no "shot picture" to refer to even if one wanted to which, honestly, a CTE user has zero need of.
Using CTE the shooter can take on shots that they have never practiced at all, never tried even once in their lives and have at worst a 50% chance to get on the shot line. And that's for a relatively inexperienced CTE user. For an experienced CTE user the chance to get on the correct shot line would be pretty much 100% even for the tiny percentage of shots that they have never attempted.
And if the experienced CTE user happened to not choose the right perception then on the second try they would choose the right one and from that point on the shot is theirs.
I have made shots from ridiculous positions because CTE is like having a set of four allen wrenches and one of them will work for any shot that I would face. Even after all these years I am still astounded at the shots I can make using CTE to aim with. Without CTE I miss by large margins when I miss. With CTE, when I pick the right preception (wrench) I miss by incredibly small margins if I miss. And with CTE, when I pick the wrong "wrench" the miss happens exactly the same way each time I use the same wrong wrench.
So all in all my opinion is that for CTE, and for 90/90 shot pictures are completely useless and would even be counterproductive possibly. The important thing for objective aiming systems is to learn to recognize and align to fairly concrete points between the balls which form the foundation of consistent application.
Proper input = consistent output.

Yessiree.....you just "drilled the money ball smack dead center from a mile away"
:thumbup:

 

[JB Cases]

Yessiree.....you just "drilled the money ball smack dead center from a mile away"
:thumbup:

Sometimes. And then "same player syndrome" kicks in and a dog an easy shot right after.

 

[Low500]

Sometimes. And then "same player syndrome" kicks in and a dog an easy shot right after.

I know all about that one too......but it gets less and less.
Keeping "the dog" at bay is a tough proposition in itself.
:thumbup:

 

[LAMas]

A ton of pros aim the tip to the very base of the cue ball
.
Some do it until the final stroke. Efren, Santos and Bustamante included.
Even on follow shots.

It was said that starting with the tip at where the CB contacts the cloth is a good way to center the cue. That it isn't affected by a possible off center parallax view of the center of the CB.

 

[Dan White]

It was said that starting with the tip at where the CB contacts the cloth is a good way to center the cue. That it isn't affected by a possible off center parallax view of the center of the CB.

Seems to me by that logic cueing with the tip at the TOP of the cue ball makes more sense. You really can't see exactly where the cb contacts the cloth but you can see where the highest arc is at the top of the cue ball. Plus, as we were discussing before, some players put the tip on the cloth and off to the side of the ball, not in the middle.

I also don't understand why some kind of parallax would affect the center of the cue ball but not the tip at the cloth. You still have two eyes giving you a slightly different image to create depth perception. Seems like the same difference.

 

[JoeyInCali]

It was said that starting with the tip at where the CB contacts the cloth is a good way to center the cue. That it isn't affected by a possible off center parallax view of the center of the CB.

Absolutely.

 

[BilliardsAbout]

Seems to me by that logic cueing with the tip at the TOP of the cue ball makes more sense. You really can't see exactly where the cb contacts the cloth but you can see where the highest arc is at the top of the cue ball. Plus, as we were discussing before, some players put the tip on the cloth and off to the side of the ball, not in the middle.

I also don't understand why some kind of parallax would affect the center of the cue ball but not the tip at the cloth. You still have two eyes giving you a slightly different image to create depth perception. Seems like the same difference.

Easier to see with colored base to either side of the base of the cb than only pure white near cb center.