whats wrong with contact point 2 contact point???

B

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
if you are able to have straight stroke
AND
make the edge of the cue ball hit a piece of chalk sitting on the edge of the nose of the rail (ie contact point to contact point)
THEN
shoudnt you use this as your aiming system
no pivot
only "perception"is the contact point (spot farthest from the pocket on the object ball)
joe tucker system is an advocate of this(contact point to contact point)
it eliminates the problem of aim point DOES NOT EQUAL contact point
if you can eliminate
pivot
cue tip(take your pic how far off center)
and other machinations
shouldnt the less is more principle
advocate this as the aiming system of preference???
dont more pros aim this way than any "pivot " method???
IT WORKS FOR ME
im sure you will tell me your thoughts
:)
 
i wont say i dont look at ball lfractions for "zeroing in" to where i have to aim
but i still depend on this edge of the cue ball has to hit that edge of the object ball
 
That's how I aim. I call it Equal Overlap (AZers told me it was pioneered/popularized by Jimmy Reid, but it's just something that occurred to me when practicing ghost ball). I recently added an imaginary rail as a confirming visual and it's working well.
 
Nothing wrong with equal/opposite (Reid's method), or contact points as long as you allow for some throw on shots. I used it for many years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Neil said:
Nothing wrong with equal/opposite (Reid's method), or contact points as long as you allow for some throw on shots. I used it for many years.
Click to expand...

sent you a greenie
i always thought of you as a staunch cte guy(icbw)
to acknowledge another system as OK is how many members who post in this forum should be as tolerant as you
:thumbup:
 
bbb said:
sent you a greenie
i always thought of you as a staunch cte guy(icbw)
to acknowledge another system as OK is how many members who post in this forum should be as tolerant as you
:thumbup:
Click to expand...

I primarily now use CTE/Pro 1 and 90/90. For me, at this time, they are better for me. That does not mean that all other systems are invalid in the least. And, I don't believe any CTE supporter has ever stated that. (although some of the detractors have stated it)

If contact to contact point works well for you, then by all means use it. Just be open minded enough to try other systems also. You just might find one you like better.
 
bbb said:
if you are able to have straight stroke
AND
make the edge of the cue ball hit a piece of chalk sitting on the edge of the nose of the rail (ie contact point to contact point)
THEN
shoudnt you use this as your aiming system
Click to expand...
I think you should use the simplest, most straightforward method that you can work with. If you can visualize the OB contact point accurately, then I think the simplest, most straightforward method is to simply learn to hit it.

only "perception"is the contact point (spot farthest from the pocket on the object ball)
Click to expand...
That is a "perception", but it's not the only one, or even the hardest - knowing where to point the CB to hit the OB contact point is the really challenging perception.

pj
chgo
 
bbb said:
What's wrong with contact point to contact point?
Click to expand...
Not saying one can't learn to adapt to it, but 2 problems that spring to mind are:

1. It's difficult to perceive the contact point on the far side of the CB.

2. It's difficult to look down this (contact point to contact point) line and perceive the parallel line to CCB, or vice versa, to look down CCB line and perceive the CP to CP line.

The overlap method does a bit to reduce problem 1 above, but increases potential perception problems related to 2 above.

That said, I think they can be good ball park methods if practiced, but I believe intuitive judgement (feel) will be needed to refine the alignment to attain high accuracy.

Colin
 
Colin Colenso said:
Not saying one can't learn to adapt to it, but 2 problems that spring to mind are:

1. It's difficult to perceive the contact point on the far side of the CB.

2. It's difficult to look down this (contact point to contact point) line and perceive the parallel line to CCB, or vice versa, to look down CCB line and perceive the CP to CP line.

The overlap method does a bit to reduce problem 1 above, but increases potential perception problems related to 2 above.

That said, I think they can be good ball park methods if practiced, but I believe intuitive judgement (feel) will be needed to refine the alignment to attain high accuracy.

Colin
Click to expand...
thanks for the reply
fwiw
i dont fear feel......:wink:
(couldnt resist.....:o)
 
bbb said:
if you are able to have straight stroke
AND
make the edge of the cue ball hit a piece of chalk sitting on the edge of the nose of the rail (ie contact point to contact point)
THEN
shoudnt you use this as your aiming system
no pivot
only "perception"is the contact point (spot farthest from the pocket on the object ball)
joe tucker system is an advocate of this(contact point to contact point)
it eliminates the problem of aim point DOES NOT EQUAL contact point
if you can eliminate
pivot
cue tip(take your pic how far off center)
and other machinations
shouldnt the less is more principle
advocate this as the aiming system of preference???
dont more pros aim this way than any "pivot " method???
IT WORKS FOR ME
im sure you will tell me your thoughts
:)
Click to expand...

If it works for you, why care about others thoughts? It's your game, your style of play, not what others think.

If you found a method that works, stick with it regardless what others think.

Some may have a hard time using this method and then try to imply there is something wrong with the method since they are unable to use it as good you do.

It's all about a proper plan of attack for practicing. That's the key. If some one can run five to ten balls or more regularly but does lack consistency in doing so , then the aiming method is not the issue, but improper practice is the issue.

It's your game, your style of play, own it, make it totally yours by practice.

This is how anything in life you want to excel at happens..
 
duckie said:
If it works for you, why care about others thoughts? It's your game, your style of play, not what others think.

If you found a method that works, stick with it regardless what others think.
Click to expand...

Hi duckie... I know that your Arrow system works... but I've also said your Arrow system is for beginners... it's sorta' like training wheels on a bike.

I don't care if it's the best system for you... but why do you keep on trying to convince others? How do you find an Arrow when the balls are close?

If you can run balls playing 14.1 I'm thinking that you may be aiming CP2CP without even realizing it. That way the CB would hit the contact patch.

Aiming at spots on the table would get you close to the contact point, but I doubt by doing that you could run many balls... It's not accurate enough.

Those are my thoughts on the Cranfield Arrow. I think he was explaining how to aim a CB for someone new to the game... There's much more to it.
.
 
Ralph Kramden said:
Hi duckie... I know that your Arrow system works... but I've also said your Arrow system is for beginners... it's sorta' like training wheels on a bike.

I don't care if it's the best system for you... but why do you keep on trying to convince others? How do you find an Arrow when the balls are close?

If you can run balls playing 14.1 I'm thinking that you may be aiming CP2CP without even realizing it. That way the CB would hit the contact patch.

Aiming at spots on the table would get you close to the contact point, but I doubt by doing that you could run many balls... It's not accurate enough.

Those are my thoughts on the Cranfield Arrow. I think he was explaining how to aim a CB for someone new to the game... There's much more to it.
.
Click to expand...

Hi Ralph,

Yeah that's it in a nut shell. What ever system one is using it's about getting the CB into 'THAT' position.

I went from essentially Ghost Ball, even though it was never called that by my Dad, to equal & opposite overlap with no real intention or direction or conscious decision to do so.

I did that when I was 13. It just seems to be a natural progression from ghost ball as would be contact to contact point which is basically the same as what I was doing but they just have different mindsets.

For some reason Greg never answers questions I ask but I'd like to know how long he has been playing the game. I was a bit shocked to see that we are of similar ages. I had pictured him as much younger.

I now find his opinion of CIT odd. I learned by seeing it when I was quite young & had it confirmed later in life in my physics classes. Back then I called it 'push'. I'd say the ball 'pushed'. I am fairly sure that that is also what led me to start using outside english at 13 years old.

I find it a bit difficult to believe that one that plays for any real length of time would not gravitate away from Ghost Ball.

Like you say, perhaps Greg has & just does not 'real eyes' it yet.

Regardless, it's like he said, it's whatever is working for any individual is fine & one should not be worried about what others say about what they are using.

But...one should always have & keep an open mind & consider & even try other methods as one may pop up that one likes & can use even better than their current method.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:
Not saying one can't learn to adapt to it, but 2 problems that spring to mind are:

1. It's difficult to perceive the contact point on the far side of the CB.

2. It's difficult to look down this (contact point to contact point) line and perceive the parallel line to CCB, or vice versa, to look down CCB line and perceive the CP to CP line.

The overlap method does a bit to reduce problem 1 above, but increases potential perception problems related to 2 above.

That said, I think they can be good ball park methods if practiced, but I believe intuitive judgement (feel) will be needed to refine the alignment to attain high accuracy.

Colin
Click to expand...

This part I put in red, I don't really understand. I used cp to cp for many years, and the only time I would look at the back of the cb is on very close shots. An inch or less of separation between cb and ob.

I don't really understand why you are looking at the back of the cb, when you can just as easily transfer the mental line to the front of the cb that you can see.??
 
Neil said:
I don't really understand why you are looking at the back of the cb, when you can just as easily transfer the mental line to the front of the cb that you can see.??
Click to expand...

I agree. Since we are all looking at "imaginary" lines, I can't see (no pun intended) why one can't "imagine" the line extending another inch or so to the other side of a 2 1/4 inch cue ball.

Aloha.
 
i appreciate all the comments....:thumbup:
for me what i am doing im happy with my ability to make the ball...:wink:
to colin
yes sometimes i miss by hitting the object ball too thick
(aiming at the contact point and not using contact point to contact point)
but for now im not looking to tweak or experiment for anything new
i beleive in the old saying
IF ITS NOT BROKE
DONT FIX IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
Neil said:
This part I put in red, I don't really understand. I used cp to cp for many years, and the only time I would look at the back of the cb is on very close shots. An inch or less of separation between cb and ob.

I don't really understand why you are looking at the back of the cb, when you can just as easily transfer the mental line to the front of the cb that you can see.??
Click to expand...
I said perceive the CP on the back of the CB, not look at. Perceiving it from the front of the CB is a reasonable method. I've experimented with it in the past, but not to the degree that I could appreciate how well one might refine such a method.

Nearly any system can be refined with practice I guess. Some will work better for certain people too I guess. I'm not bagging this system, just pointing out a couple of the challenges it presents.

Colin
 
Delivery Guide

I use Contact Point to Contact Point for a delivery guide and it works great for that when you have determined the right place to hit the ball. I feel like its more of a delivery guide than an aiming mechanism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top