Why CTE is silly

[JoeyInCali]

Roger, A ghost ball is invisible. There is nothing objective about a ghost ball.

Hal had more information than "Just see CTE and whack it!" I thought that I had made that clear in my post.

CTE is superior to Ghost Ball because CTE has exact visuals and precise physical movements that take the shooter to a proper aim.

It's plain and simple, I guess with ghost ball and not with CTE.

Stan

Stan, the imaginary aiming line or the line of the shot is also invisible isn't it?

 

[GetMeThere]

At the heart of CTE is an objective perception that occurs for all CTE shots. That perception is KEY and is never abandoned. It is natural and efffortless once learned through repetition. That visual alignment happens for every CTE shot, allowing the shooter to have a constant visual perspective from which to use one of 2 moves to center cue ball.

To abandon this objective perception would diminish the effectiveness of CTE altogether.

Stan

You seem to have decided to ignore my question about an OB-pocket relationship.

Now, this post discusses "perception," and, since obviously we're preceiving all the time we have our eyes open, I think you must be referring to something "more" than "sight" being part of CTE.

So I'll ask my question another way, and perhaps you'll favor me with an answer:

1) If a robot could exactly follow the formulaic directions of Pro-One (to align such a way, pivot such a way, etc). Would it always pocket the ball (excluding problems regarding throw and english)?

2) Would the robot be analyzing the spatial relationships between OB and pocket as part of it's Pro-One calculation?

 

[cookie man]

Stan:





I have a motto I like to use to describe what's happening when I'm in the zone: "See ghostball, shoot ghostball squarely in the face, right between the eyes." Something like those whack-a-mole games, except I'm shooting the mole in the face, not whacking him on top of the head.

Also, another thought -- while many folks have a problem visualizing something that's not there (i.e. the ghostball), others may not be able to see the "center" of something. Stan, I'm sure as an instructor, you've run across quite a few students who continually hit the cue ball off-center, or who continue to miss certain cut shots the very same way, every time (i.e. they overcut it everytime, or they undercut it everytime). These are perception errors -- they're not seeing the "center" of the object properly. These are visual errors that *can* be diagnosed and worked out of someone's game. But in many instances -- as well-written about here in this thread -- some will think it's better to just aim at something they *can* easily see, which are the edges of the ball, and merely pivot a certain amount to get them into "center."

What I do think is bad, is over-analyzing, or "paralysis through analysis." You should be able to get yourself to the point where you can just step into/onto the shot line, get down, and execute the shot. Aiming is NOT something you should have to think about, nor is it something you should even be considering when you're already down on the shot. You should already *be* there. If you have to "think" about aiming, you've already missed the shot -- if not the one you're currently down on, then a subsequent one.

I hope this is helpful,
-Sean

Sean this was a very good post and as A CTE pro one user myself I would like to address a few things. You talk about being in the zone and it is a beautiful thing. When I am I smile cause I am seeing the CTEL line, going down to center ball and smacking the mole in the same place as you, and I bet it feels just as natural as it does for you.
Your next paragraph talks about visualazation problems, which I feel alot of them for me have been corrected. I just feel like with cte, i have basically the same thing to look at all the time, seems to have removed most of those problems. I feel I am making more problem(tough) shots because I can repeat the CTE process and concentrate on hitting center q-ball.
Your "paralysis through analysis" is really where PRO-ONE has come into its full value. When properly used your doing the same thing over and over, no analyzing.
I think people in general hear pivoting, and CTEL, and effective pivot point, and think CTE is too much of a hassle. These are things you have to learn but the finished product results in you looking very normal playing pool, you just come to the proper aim line in a repeatable and consistent way. I just feel that with the CTEL you have the same thing to look at all the time, it really can't get any easier than that.

 

[Roger Long]

Nesli O'Hare says, "Efren taught her that there are only 3 kinds of hits to the OB (hmmm, sounds familiar);" yet, when they interviewed Efren, he acted like he no-speaka-no-english and said he spins the cb and aims straight at the contact point. I'm not a sucker, so I'll say that's horseshit.

Someone is lying, and I don't think it's the lady.

Since Efren "no-speaka-no-english" we don't know that he was even talking about aiming when he taught this to Ms. O'Hare. His "'3 kinds of hits to the OB'" may have been in reference to stop, follow, and draw; "yet, when they interviewed Efren," he and the interviewer were undoubtedly talking about aiming.

None of this makes anyone a liar.

Roger

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Since Efren "no-speaka-no-english" we don't know that he was even talking about aiming when he taught this to Ms. O'Hare. His "'3 kinds of hits to the OB'" may have been in reference to stop, follow, and draw; "yet, when they interviewed Efren," he and the interviewer were undoubtedly talking about aiming.

None of this makes anyone a liar.

Roger

Roger, if you think stop, follow and draw have anything to do with aiming (or think that's what Nesli was referring to), we can't even communicate. You need to read her quote again.

Read my post another 5x. You missed everything.


Edit---

You actually think Nesli (a wpba pro) went to Efren (a legend), asked for an aiming lesson and was educated about stop, follow and draw??

????????????????

OK class.... read nesli's quote about what Efren taught her and read Efren's direct answer to the same question. There's a tiny little guy in a family picture in the funny pic/gif thread...even he knows the answers don't match.

 

[Roger Long]

Roger, if you think stop, follow and draw have anything to do with aiming (or think that's what Nesli was referring to), we can't even communicate.

Read my post another 5x. You missed everything.


Edit---

You actually think Nesli (a wpba pro) went to Efren (a legend), asked for an aiming lesson and was educated about stop, follow and draw??

????????????????

And do you actually think Efren Reyes, arguably the best player of all time, would ever feel the need to lie to the public about how he aims?

I will remind you that you are the one who said "someone is lying here."

Roger

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan, the imaginary aiming line or the line of the shot is also invisible isn't it?

JoeyinCali,


We see in straight lines. I'd say most people can visualize a line to an objective aiming reference and even extend that line to another aim point.


When looking for a ghostball. unless your visual skills are highly developed, there is no objective aim point. If there were an objective aim point on the ghost ball then players would have a straight visual line to that aim point.

Stan

 

[Maniac]

I respectfully disagree with the fact that many pros are actually using ghost ball. A professional player's aim is refined over time through repetition. A perception develops......No doubt that along the way many pros have used ghost ball and the quarters to some degree and other aiming systems as well but it ultimately becomes perception and that perception has for the most part has been difficult to explain.

Hal's system is perception based.....and a player does not have to wait years to get it.

Stan

Stan, you did not disagree with what I stated in my quoted post, you actually agreed with it. I did not say that the current and former pros USE the ghost ball method. I only stated that they learned how to aim (in their beginnings) using ghost ball. I stated (just as you did in the above quoted post) that through countless hours of practice, that they now have the FEEL for aiming and basically don't use any "system" per se.

Like I stated before, ANY and ALL systems rely on a line or lines that can only be percieved by ones brain and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM are perfect because ultimately, human error comes into play (hence the reason why EVERYBODY misses shots).

I have stated before that I am neither pro nor con on the CTE aiming system (or any other aiming system for that matter). Whatever works best for any individual is what that individual should use, no matter what it's called,

Maniac

 

[SpiderWebComm]

And do you actually think Efren Reyes, arguably the best player of all time, would ever feel the need to lie to the public about how he aims?

I will remind you that you are the one who said "someone is lying here."

Roger

Rog,

If Nesli asked Efren how he aims and he says, "A" and the author asked Efren and he says, "B" ----- Did Efren lie to Nesli or lie to the reporter?

Once again, Roger, read the article. I'm just pointing out a discrepancy that calls into question Nesli's account or Efren's answer.

Either:

A) Nesli asked Efren and Efren gave her bad info (told her "how he aims" when he really does something else)
B) Efren gave the reporter bad info
C) Nesli never really got a lesson from Efren and made it all up

Any of the above are lies in my book. Stop being so scared to call a spade a spade. See, when the best player ever says he aims by shooting straight at the contact point - I can't assume he really believes that. You might, I don't - for sure. Pool player lie? Naaaaah. Not a pool player. With his stroke, if he REALLY did that - he'd never make a ball.

Dave

Maybe the best pool player in the history of mankind THINKS he's aiming at the contact point when he is really aiming nowhere near it. Also, maybe Nesli was dreaming and probably never received an aiming lesson from Efren.

 

[Maniac]

I'd say very, very few are ACTUALLY using ghost ball. I'd say that most pros cannot explain exactly what they are using.

Stan

I'd say that there is a LOT of truth in this statement. I'm no pro by any means, but my brain has sent a message to my eyes of where I need to hit the OB before I am even finished getting to the table. Once I get there, it's as clear as day where I need to hit it and what part of the cueball needs to hit the OB in the place it needs to to make the shot. There's no thinking to it. My brain just does it automatically. It's not really a "system" at all. It's just my brain at work. Hours and hours on a table practicing gets a persons brain to function like this. Probably a lot of seasoned pros see the same thing I do, only they execute the shots better because they have smoother, straighter, more repeatable strokes than I do, which is far more important than any aiming system, imo.

Maniac

 

[Jal]

...When looking for a ghostball. unless your visual skills are highly developed, there is no objective aim point. If there were an objective aim point on the ghost ball then players would have a straight visual line to that aim point.

Stan

Nevertheless, you can't get to the ghostball (proper aim line) without the ghostball. You don't need the entire ghostball, but some part thereof. All accurate aiming depends on it, regardless of what you do beforehand. This includes 'feel'.

I state that without qualification because the exceptions are too unwieldy to take very seriously. May I ask if you agree? (I'm not trying to add another ten pages to this thread and won't respond to any direct answer. I would just like to hear your take, if possible.)

Jim

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan, you did not disagree with what I stated in my quoted post, you actually agreed with it. I did not say that the current and former pros USE the ghost ball method. I only stated that they learned how to aim (in their beginnings) using ghost ball. I stated (just as you did in the above quoted post) that through countless hours of practice, that they now have the FEEL for aiming and basically don't use any "system" per se.

Like I stated before, ANY and ALL systems rely on a line or lines that can only be percieved by ones brain and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM are perfect because ultimately, human error comes into play (hence the reason why EVERYBODY misses shots).

I have stated before that I am neither pro nor con on the CTE aiming system (or any other aiming system for that matter). Whatever works best for any individual is what that individual should use, no matter what it's called,

Maniac

Thanks for clarification. Yes, we do agree!

Stan

 

[lfigueroa]

I guess he reminds me of Tony M. or John W. Or a combination. The logic of Matthews and the relentlessness of Walkup. The relentlessness makes the uncompromising logic easy for me to just take a pass. The combination might be new, but the arguments are not. IMO, GMT adds nothing to the (tiring but in fruitful) discussions we've had over the years, as much as might believe he's saying something we've never heard before.

Fred

Well, we just have different takes -- I think he does bring something new to the mix.

And, Fred, since you don't participate in these threads how can they be so tiring? Whether you believe it or not, I think these discussions move the CTE football down the field a bit at time. With Stan's DVD and Spider's "CTE A User's Manual," we might even get into the fourth quarter

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Stan:

I'm trying to stay out of this thread, because I like to take the high road when it comes to intelligent discussion -- respect for the individual, but if I have an issue with an IDEA or WHAT IS SAID, I won't hesitate to call it out for the purposes of discussion/elaboration. I hadn't liked where this thread was going, hence why I stayed out of it.

Concerning the two things I've bolded in your post above, I want to point out a few very important things:

1. Pool, as you've inferred, is partly a game of visualization, and most assuredly of execution. The word "visualization" itself, in the visualization part, is key. Part of the visualization includes the sighting and aiming of a shot. This includes the ghostball itself, for those that use (and are successful) with this technique.

2. I'm an Open-level player, and ever since I first picked up a cue as a child, I was able to "see" that ghostball clear as day. John Barton likes to use the term "savant" when it comes to my described ability to see the ghostball. In fact, I offer a challenge to you (and others, who would like to take it up as well) if we meet in person: you and I can stand table side, face-to-face, my eyes looking into yours (and vice-versa) -- our gaze "locked." I can subsequently, without moving my eyes, place the tip of my cue in the center of the ghostball position behind the object ball, with that ghostball's center lined up to pocket that object ball, plus or minus a degree -- all without moving my eyes, and all using my peripheral vision. I'll then carefully lay the butt of the cue down on the table, to keep the tip of the cue position on that ghostball center. You can stay focused on my eyes, to make sure my eyes don't move, and then after I lay the butt of the cue down on the table, we can then both break our gaze and walk over to the shot to check my work. I'm very, very rarely significantly "off" such that shooting the cue ball onto that spot does not pocket the object ball.

Am I gifted with this ability? Or have I worked long and hard to acquire this ability? That's hard to say. I like to think I worked to get this ability. For sure, my ability to "perceive" comes from the years of sketching and drawing I did (some even submitted to comic books like D.C. and Marvel back in the day -- not sketched copies of someone else's work, but original stuff drawn straight out of thin air). That also was a practiced skill -- it got better and better with time and practice. And that's the beauty of the human mind -- the ability to perceive things that, in reality, are not there. Accordingly, the shot line (to pocket an object ball) is "not there," but you "see" it, don't you?

I think the problem with all the skepticism surrounding any pivot aiming system is the lack of trust people have for their subconscious mind (a massive storehouse of "execution" knowledge), as well as to the focused dedication to practice in "seeing" all aspects of the shot -- including that ghostball. People want a placebo, or something that they can [mis]place their trust in or divert their attention to. Pool is best played when one is "in the zone," running purely on the subconscious mind's fuel. When you see a player like a Ronnie O'Sullivan, an Earl Strickland (when he's focused to play, and not on the things going around him) or a Tony Drago running around the table, pocketing balls effortlessly, it's not only enjoyable to the people watching, but to the player him/herself. Playing pool (and especially more accurate games like snooker, ball-pocketing-precision-wise) are not played well when the player is trying to force him/herself to use the conscious/analytical mind "all the time."

I have a motto I like to use to describe what's happening when I'm in the zone: "See ghostball, shoot ghostball squarely in the face, right between the eyes." Something like those whack-a-mole games, except I'm shooting the mole in the face, not whacking him on top of the head.

Also, another thought -- while many folks have a problem visualizing something that's not there (i.e. the ghostball), others may not be able to see the "center" of something. Stan, I'm sure as an instructor, you've run across quite a few students who continually hit the cue ball off-center, or who continue to miss certain cut shots the very same way, every time (i.e. they overcut it everytime, or they undercut it everytime). These are perception errors -- they're not seeing the "center" of the object properly. These are visual errors that *can* be diagnosed and worked out of someone's game. But in many instances -- as well-written about here in this thread -- some will think it's better to just aim at something they *can* easily see, which are the edges of the ball, and merely pivot a certain amount to get them into "center." In rifle shooting, this is roughly analogous to someone who can't see the fatal (points-scoring) center heart-shot on a human silhouette rifle target. So what he/she does instead, is to aim at the very edge of the human silhouette's shoulder, pivot inwards "x" amount (to artificially [blindly?] place him/her in the heart-shot area), and pull the trigger.

Is this "bad"? No. If folks reading my post come away with one thing, the one thing that I want them to come away with is that I believe you do what you have to do to get that fatal (or points-scoring) center heart-shot. If you can't perceive the center of something, or if you find it's easier to aim at the edge of something, that *is* what you have to do to get the job done.

What I do think is bad, is over-analyzing, or "paralysis through analysis." You should be able to get yourself to the point where you can just step into/onto the shot line, get down, and execute the shot. Aiming is NOT something you should have to think about, nor is it something you should even be considering when you're already down on the shot. You should already *be* there. If you have to "think" about aiming, you've already missed the shot -- if not the one you're currently down on, then a subsequent one.

I hope this is helpful,
-Sean

Nice post, Sean.

I do have one point of partial disagreement: the part about a player consistently overcutting or undercutting a ball. IMO, while that can be a perception issue, it can also be a case, for many players, of it being a PSR flaw. The guys that are setting up for too full a hit are usually the same guys that are trying to spin everything in. IOW, they do see that they're not setup right and try to compensate with english and/or swerve.

Lou Figueroa

 

[stan shuffett]

Nevertheless, you can't get to the ghostball (proper aim line) without the ghostball. You don't need the entire ghostball, but some part thereof. All accurate aiming depends on it, regardless of what you do beforehand. This includes 'feel'.

I state that without qualification because the exceptions are too unwieldy to take very seriously. May I ask if you agree? (I'm not trying to add another ten pages to this thread and won't respond to any direct answer. I would just like to hear your take, if possible.)

Jim

The CTE process takes one to a proper aim. Since ghost ball represents a proper aim, then I'd say that CTE and PRO ONE take the shooter to the ghost ball. Ghost ball is not a standard concept that is taught in CTE. However, at times, I refer to the ghost ball concept when working with some students.


Stan

 

[lfigueroa]

I get tired of that article. The best players interviewed say they aim by feel or a "spot on the ball." Geez, Rempe says he shoots straight at the contact point (good luck with that one, folks).

I mean come on folks... you guys even READING this article closely??

Nesli O'Hare says, "Efren taught her that there are only 3 kinds of hits to the OB (hmmm, sounds familiar);" yet, when they interviewed Efren, he acted like he no-speaka-no-english and said he spins the cb and aims straight at the contact point. I'm not a sucker, so I'll say that's horseshit.

Someone is lying, and I don't think it's the lady.

Anyways - keep using that article as a reference so we further confuse ourselves. Keep shooting straight at contact points.... just like EFREN. sigggggggggggh

Dave

Why does someone have to be lying?

Perhaps, when asked, Efren just threw her a bone and tried to give her something basic to work with -- knowing full well she was no where near ready to deal with the way he really aims. I'm no Efren, but if a lesser player is asking me for a tip on aiming, I'm probably not going to help them much by saying "I just see the shot." So I'd probably give them something like ghost ball, just to get rid of them. If they were really annoying, I'd give them CTE

Lou Figueroa

 

[duckie]

JoeyinCali,


We see in straight lines. I'd say most people can visualize a line to an objective aiming reference and even extend that line to another aim point.


When looking for a ghostball. unless your visual skills are highly developed, there is no objective aim point. If there were an objective aim point on the ghost ball then players would have a straight visual line to that aim point.

Stan

Objective aim point is a a bulleye on a target that you shot it by properly aligning the front and rear sights.

Unless there is a hit here sign, there are no such things as objective aim points in shot making.

And you are so wrong about ghost ball not having a straight visual line to aim at. This is the biggest problem with people that do not really reseach something.

Read:
Since I like ghost ball, this is the way I got there. Back in the early 70's is when I started playing pool and back then there was nowhere near the available info on pool as there is now. It was all trial and error at first but kinda grew into using ghost ball. I played that way and was not too bad, but was not very serious about playing. More social than anything and faded from playing over time.

Back about 5 years or so, with the kids grown and time on my hands, I started playing again. Of course, I just used the old ways. The difference now is that I'm more serious than before, so I really want to improve. Read and tried fractional, parallel, light/reflection aiming systems, just about anything out there to help my quest. I even tried various banks systems.

I realized that I really didn't understand what was happening to make the cue ball actually hit the object ball to put it into a pocket. I had a general idea but nothing really solid.

So, on a sheet of paper, I drew two circles touching, one representing the OB, the other representing the GB. Where they touched is the contact point. I marked both centers on the paper. Then I drew a line from the contact point toward the direction of the pocket. Then I drew another circle somewhere on the paper to representing the CB with its centered marked. Ghost ball on paper.

Studying that drawing, I noticed a few things and kinda came up with some new terms, at least for me.

One is contact patch. That is the area where the ball meets the table and is also the center of all the circles. That’s what all balls roll on.

Another is direction of travel. That would be the direction a ball rolls. I like this because the word travel implies movement which is a big part of pool and needs to be thought about. This is also what the contact patch rolls on.

Looking at just the OB and GB circles, I noticed the OB and GB contact patches and contact point are on the same line. I then realized the direction of travel of the OB really started at the GB contact patch. Also, that the GB contact patch is always 1/2 ball from the edge of the OB, as long as both are the same size.

I then included the CB circle into the mix. First thing I noticed was that if I put the CB contact patch at the GB contact patch, the OB will go in. Second, was that no matter the cut angle, I had to put the CB contact patch at the GB patch. This is why I have a hard time believing a true 90 degree cut shot. Third, that the direction of travel of the CB after hitting a OB ball starts at the GB contact patch which also the starting point for the direction of travel for the OB.

Now, I added spin into the mix. I noticed that any hit on the center line of the CB circle is right toward the GB contact point and on the CB circle direction of travel to the GB contact patch. This also means that the cue stick should be on that same line. This is the heart of shot making.

This is why learning center ball is very important.

Since the GB contact patch is always 1/2 ball from the OB edge, adjusting for side spin is just a matter of rotating the GB contact patch in the proper direction around the edge of the OB for the side spin used. How much? That’s where table time comes in. You just can't know all about English unless you hit alot of balls with all types of spin and on different tables and hw the same table and set of balls can play different depending oh how clean and the weather. This is the biggest reason that HAMB is so important.

Something I noticed about using the direction of travel line of the OB. That was how far the pocket is from the OB really doesn't matter. What matter was this, knowing what the direction of travel of the OB would be for the type of shot being made and picking a point on that line about 4-6 inches in front of the OB. If you put the CB on the proper point on the table to cause the OB roll over that point, than the OB will go in.

Of course this was on paper, so time to go the table. This is where I started my GB visualization drill. At first I used the 8 and 1 ball and the CB. I'd place the 8 on the table as the OB and the 1 on the table as the GB and the CB somewhere else on the table like I did on paper.

I'd look at the 8/1 from a straight in shot point of view then move over to where the CB was, got in my stance as if to shoot, but didn't, but just looked the 1's contact patch. I would move the CB around or the 8/1 and repeat. It looked strange doing this drill, but I really didn't care. Drills are not always about hitting balls. This is also where the Arrow comes in handy cause you can actually have the arrow on the table and just aim at its point cause its point is the same as the GB contact patch.

Now, I have realized a few more things from this. One is the tops of the OB and CB are opposite of the contact patch. At times I use the top of the CB to sight to the where the GB contact patch would be. Sometimes I use just the tops of the CB and OB to sight. Also, I noticed my eye pattern is more up and down, looking from where the CB is to where I want to put it on the table. Unlike looking from a contact point on the OB to a spot table to where the CB should be and then back to the CB and back to the spot on the table to the contact point of the object for needed adjust.

Sometimes I use the lights to reference where the GB contact patch is. Sometimes I use fractional to reference where the GB contact is.
Sometimes I use parallel to reference where the GB contact patch is.

But I aim for the GB contact patch. There have been times, I see where the OB direction of travel starts, which is the same spot of the GB contact patch, I put the CB on that spot on the table and never really consider the OB. But this comes and goes and takes time, practice to learn.

Seldom do I even think of the contact point. I just used it to help establish the start point for the OB direction to travel. Once I have that, its forgotten. I never think about trying to hit a contact point on the OB with a contact point on the CB. It’s about putting the CB at the proper point on the table to make the OB go where I want it. I never try to "see" a GB.

Anyway, this is how I got to believe what I do about making shots in pool. I thought I had something new until I got Babe Canfields’ "Straight Pool Bible" and read the chapter about the arrow. I had nothing new, but I felt great that my thinking was almost exactly like his.

FWIW

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Why does someone have to be lying?

Perhaps, when asked, Efren just threw her a bone and tried to give her something basic to work with -- knowing full well she was no where near ready to deal with the way he really aims. I'm no Efren, but if a lesser player is asking me for a tip on aiming, I'm probably not going to help them much by saying "I just see the shot." So I'd probably give them something like ghost ball, just to get rid of them. If they were really annoying, I'd give them CTE

Lou Figueroa

I figured you'd say that. Not ready to deal with the way he aims...aiming at the contact point? Nesli isn't anywhere near advanced enough as a pro to figure that one out. Efren could have said "I just see the shot" like some other pros did. Instead, he said he aimed "exactly" at the CP.

I do understand what you're saying though.... for lesser players. When a pro asks another pro how they aim and they get into OB quarter targets and then a reporter gets "exactly at the CP" --- even you see a breakdown, right? Efren gave bad info to someone -- that's my point.

 

[stan shuffett]

Objective aim point is a a bulleye on a target that you shot it by properly aligning the front and rear sights.

Unless there is a hit here sign, there are no such things as objective aim points in shot making.

And you are so wrong about ghost ball not having a straight visual line to aim at. This is the biggest problem with people that do not really reseach something.

Read:
Since I like ghost ball, this is the way I got there. Back in the early 70's is when I started playing pool and back then there was nowhere near the available info on pool as there is now. It was all trial and error at first but kinda grew into using ghost ball. I played that way and was not too bad, but was not very serious about playing. More social than anything and faded from playing over time.

Back about 5 years or so, with the kids grown and time on my hands, I started playing again. Of course, I just used the old ways. The difference now is that I'm more serious than before, so I really want to improve. Read and tried fractional, parallel, light/reflection aiming systems, just about anything out there to help my quest. I even tried various banks systems.

I realized that I really didn't understand what was happening to make the cue ball actually hit the object ball to put it into a pocket. I had a general idea but nothing really solid.

So, on a sheet of paper, I drew two circles touching, one representing the OB, the other representing the GB. Where they touched is the contact point. I marked both centers on the paper. Then I drew a line from the contact point toward the direction of the pocket. Then I drew another circle somewhere on the paper to representing the CB with its centered marked. Ghost ball on paper.

Studying that drawing, I noticed a few things and kinda came up with some new terms, at least for me.

One is contact patch. That is the area where the ball meets the table and is also the center of all the circles. That’s what all balls roll on.

Another is direction of travel. That would be the direction a ball rolls. I like this because the word travel implies movement which is a big part of pool and needs to be thought about. This is also what the contact patch rolls on.

Looking at just the OB and GB circles, I noticed the OB and GB contact patches and contact point are on the same line. I then realized the direction of travel of the OB really started at the GB contact patch. Also, that the GB contact patch is always 1/2 ball from the edge of the OB, as long as both are the same size.

I then included the CB circle into the mix. First thing I noticed was that if I put the CB contact patch at the GB contact patch, the OB will go in. Second, was that no matter the cut angle, I had to put the CB contact patch at the GB patch. This is why I have a hard time believing a true 90 degree cut shot. Third, that the direction of travel of the CB after hitting a OB ball starts at the GB contact patch which also the starting point for the direction of travel for the OB.

Now, I added spin into the mix. I noticed that any hit on the center line of the CB circle is right toward the GB contact point and on the CB circle direction of travel to the GB contact patch. This also means that the cue stick should be on that same line. This is the heart of shot making.

This is why learning center ball is very important.

Since the GB contact patch is always 1/2 ball from the OB edge, adjusting for side spin is just a matter of rotating the GB contact patch in the proper direction around the edge of the OB for the side spin used. How much? That’s where table time comes in. You just can't know all about English unless you hit alot of balls with all types of spin and on different tables and hw the same table and set of balls can play different depending oh how clean and the weather. This is the biggest reason that HAMB is so important.

Something I noticed about using the direction of travel line of the OB. That was how far the pocket is from the OB really doesn't matter. What matter was this, knowing what the direction of travel of the OB would be for the type of shot being made and picking a point on that line about 4-6 inches in front of the OB. If you put the CB on the proper point on the table to cause the OB roll over that point, than the OB will go in.

Of course this was on paper, so time to go the table. This is where I started my GB visualization drill. At first I used the 8 and 1 ball and the CB. I'd place the 8 on the table as the OB and the 1 on the table as the GB and the CB somewhere else on the table like I did on paper.

I'd look at the 8/1 from a straight in shot point of view then move over to where the CB was, got in my stance as if to shoot, but didn't, but just looked the 1's contact patch. I would move the CB around or the 8/1 and repeat. It looked strange doing this drill, but I really didn't care. Drills are not always about hitting balls. This is also where the Arrow comes in handy cause you can actually have the arrow on the table and just aim at its point cause its point is the same as the GB contact patch.

Now, I have realized a few more things from this. One is the tops of the OB and CB are opposite of the contact patch. At times I use the top of the CB to sight to the where the GB contact patch would be. Sometimes I use just the tops of the CB and OB to sight. Also, I noticed my eye pattern is more up and down, looking from where the CB is to where I want to put it on the table. Unlike looking from a contact point on the OB to a spot table to where the CB should be and then back to the CB and back to the spot on the table to the contact point of the object for needed adjust.

Sometimes I use the lights to reference where the GB contact patch is. Sometimes I use fractional to reference where the GB contact is.
Sometimes I use parallel to reference where the GB contact patch is.

But I aim for the GB contact patch. There have been times, I see where the OB direction of travel starts, which is the same spot of the GB contact patch, I put the CB on that spot on the table and never really consider the OB. But this comes and goes and takes time, practice to learn.

Seldom do I even think of the contact point. I just used it to help establish the start point for the OB direction to travel. Once I have that, its forgotten. I never think about trying to hit a contact point on the OB with a contact point on the CB. It’s about putting the CB at the proper point on the table to make the OB go where I want it. I never try to "see" a GB.

Anyway, this is how I got to believe what I do about making shots in pool. I thought I had something new until I got Babe Canfields’ "Straight Pool Bible" and read the chapter about the arrow. I had nothing new, but I felt great that my thinking was almost exactly like his.

FWIW

Duckie,


I do not see a patch so I have no reference for a straight line. The line has to be to something that is objective for my satisfaction.

My details about aiming will be on my DVD. I am moving forward as quickly as possible.

You do make many good points in your post.

Stan

 

[Patrick Johnson]

GetMeThere:
I'm not sure there's an important and consistent phenomenon that needs theorizing.

The phenomenon is players saying that CTE helps them aim better.

What's your evidence (other than anecdote)?

What's your contrary evidence (other than nothing)?

More to the point, what's the point of denying the possibility (other than chain jerking)?

pj
chgo