Why Ghost Ball Aiming Fails You

[JB Cases]

Listen, I'm not trying to cause another stink on the CTE/Ghostball debate, but this thread is going to go exactly in the same direction as the other epic saga of "aiming systems" went. and that's downhill on a snowbank in a greased sled!

John, to start this thread you are using the same reasoning against Ghostball aiming as GMT did against CTE on the other thread. It smells like the classic "you stepped on my toes so I'll just beat up your little brother" reasoning. It is wrong for anyone to say anyone elses aiming methods are failing them, when in fact it just may be that the student just cannot grasp the concept and should probably move on to another method. To many persons on this site, starting this thread puts you in the same light as they hold GMT in.

I am going to mention some names here. There are many others I could list, but these few will be well representative of what I'm talking about: Jesse Bowman, Earl Strickland, Luc Salvas, "Machine Gun" Lou Butera, Brandon Shuff, etc. And believe me, I could list MANY others. These are players who, when on their games, can run a rack of 8-ball or 9-ball in a little over a minutes time. When they are doing this, I can assure you they are using a "feel" system derived from some sort of Ghostball system and not from CTE, to be sure.

Two words: Speed Pool...............not everyones cup of tea, but for sure entertaining. At the rate they are pocketing balls (and the best Speed Pool players are damn good at it), I can assure you that the same goes for them as does the players I mentioned above.

My point is, to say Ghostball aiming fails anyone is only a sad rebuttal to the thread that GMT started on the silliness of CTE, when in fact Ghostball aiming fails only certain persons who cannot adapt to it. The same can be said (and has been, obviously) about CTE or any other method used for aiming.

Why can't we all just agree that for the most part, all aiming systems are good and useful in the pool world, and that it's just up to each and every player as an INDIVIDUAL to find out which one works best for him/her?

Let's put aside bitter feelings and all try to get along the best we can here, for the sake of harmony in the pool community. Healthy debate is fine, but it seems like it just goes too far sometimes.

And......once again to be certain you understand, I am not a detractor of CTE. If it works for you and so many others as y'all have stated, then it is just as much a real and true method as anything out there, just as Ghostball is to others.

Flame me, type harsh words to me, I don't care. This will assuredly be my one and ONLY post in this thread.

Maniac

You have it wrong. The reason I posted this is because I think that Ghost Ball deserves some serious examination.

I have asked myself what's wrong with it or me that I can't use and play at a higher level?

My conclusion is that it's simply too hard to constantly have to guess and estimate the right amount of offset to compensate for throw.

I feel as though no matter how much practice I put in I will never be able to use the GB method to consistently "see" the GB in the proper spot and the harder the shot the more I am uncertain.

While thinking about it this morning I thought of the experiment and want to see how well I could do. After all I have been playing for 30 years and I should be able to put a dot at nearly the perfect distance for the GB every time right?

I have run 98 balls in straight pool so I am not exactly a bad player. But why do certain shots just kill me when using GB/Feel?

My conclusion is that I can't see the GB in the right spot even though I feel that I am lined up perfectly.

Hence, the thread.

And for the record it's not because of GMT that I posted this, it's because of Dave Alciatore and his GB videos.

And no, we can't all just get along. Well I could because I really don't care what anyone uses. But I do care if they call me delusional and people I look up to scam artists. Dave Alciatore and GMT have both bee guilty of this. But that's not what this thread is about. It about examining what we all think of as Ghost Ball aiming.

 

[Dudley]

Wouldn't it be nice if all you needed to do is use the right system and then you could always make the ball......

I think that systems can have merit but they are only a tiny, tiny, part of the game.

Only through repetition and solid fundamentals can you develop consistancy no matter which system you use.

The funniest part about all the aiming systems is that as soon as you start using english they all break down in some way.... Then you need a new system for using english.

Whatever, to each his own.

I am gonna go practice.....

Dudley

 

[Snapshot9]

2 ways to aim

You aiming guys make my head hurt!!! .... lol

There are 2 ways to aim only:

1) Envisioning the whole shot, then consideration of the detail parts of it.
(An Art form of aiming).

or

2) Considering all the details that go into the shot, and then trying to envision what the whole shot will do. (A Scientific [or Engineering] form of aiming).

This is almost like the difference between Integral and Differential Calculus.
When you aim you are trying to hit the contact point. How you approach that though is left up to you.

I aim using #1, works for me. I have always had a great imagination and can visualize things with no problem.

 

[12squared]

The reason I am hung up on it is because I aim to show that although it's dead easy to understand as a concept it's truly not as easy to implement as a practice. At least not as Dr. Dave describes it with picking a spot on the felt that corresponds to the GB center.

I fully understand that one must not visualize the GB on a center line to the pocket.

Here is the kicker though.

IF you take a player and you ask them to line up two balls in line with a pocket at distance, say half a table or more away from the pocket, often they cannot line the balls up to the pocket. They will off enough to make the object ball miss. And that's with two real balls.

In other words it's really a matter of perception. While you can "see" the GB offset a fraction of an inch to the correct side another person can't see that even though they think that they do.

So they learn to compensate but that compensation breaks down in some places and they are now guessing again.

That's the problem I have with GB.

OK, thanks.

 

[12squared]

You gave away the SECRET!!!!

Now go out and test the INFORMATION,.........this weekend...... :wink:

What are you trying to say? I said what I was trying to say, but I have no idea what you are implying. I have made a ball once in my life .

Dave

 

[stljohnny]

I submit that using GB is the problem. I think that people, some people, see the GB well enough for a certain range of shots but when shots come up that are outside that range then it breaks down and they don't "see" the GB in the right place even though they think they are.

I honestly believe that it's this type of visualization error that leads people to get down on a shot in full confidence that they are lined up right and when they miss they are surprised because everything felt perfect.

I don't really use any one particular system (but two have posted here that is the *exacty* way I am (DogsPlayingPool for one)... but JB your statement above really stuck out for me.

I did, for a loooong time have problems with a cut shots that shouldn't have been that difficult for me. I tried a lot of different things, but nothing seemed to work. Then, honestly, I was trying to figure out Gene's eye location thing on my own and started moving my eyes across the stick and tracking results. Personally, for me, I found my eyes need to be in different places for different slices. Once I figured this out, my ball-pocketing and cutting ability went way up. So... when you people don't "see" the ghost ball accurately, I agree. I had previous to that day, determined the straight in line from ball to pocket, then lined myself up from the cb to the contact point. The problem wasn't that I was seeing the line from the OB to pocket wrong, it was that I was seeing the line from CB to OB wrong (from what I can guess, it was a dominant eye overruling the other eye's information problem).

So maybe... just maybe... it's not a CTE vs GB thing at all... I think I've found myself in Gene's camp of "eye location" - and I haven't bought his DVD or taken a class from him. I have, however, tried to listen to what every one has said in regards to aiming.

I would like to learn, in detail, how CTE works just because I'm an academic at heart; but at the same time, I tried reading SpiderWebCam's blogs about it and I couldn't make it work. Maybe I needed more practice or table time or someone there to talk me through it in various explanations? *shrug*

 

[MitchAlsup]

My conclusion is that it's simply too hard to constantly have to guess and estimate the right amount of offset to compensate for throw.

Its not just the sidespin, buth the forward/backspin at the moment of contact. Both need compensation. And the two effects are not (as a mathematician would say) linearly independent.

What I have found is that there is a tiny window where the CB is sliding longitudinally where sidespin has a significantly greated effect than when rollinig forwarrds or slipping backwards on the cloth. I use this dead-ball contact with spin to throw in balls that are otherwise unmakable. If the CB has longitudinal spin the sidespin does not bite as much. Getting to know this relationship does take something like 10 thousand shots. Knowing it intimately takes somethign like 1 million shots.

 

[dr_dave]

Dave uses a spot on the felt.

Not true. I use a combination of visualizations, per DAM. I visualize the necessary CB-OB contact point (to account for throw when appropriate), the necessary line-of-centers for the shot, and the entire ghost-ball (as 12squared has described). I do this before and as I drop into my stance. I sometimes also get a visual on the amount of "ball overlap" (between the GB and OB) required during this process. This seems to help me focus better when I'm down low in my stance. This is all part of my pre-shot routine, and I've practiced it enough to where I don't need to think about it; although, I need to practice a lot more.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JoeyInCali]

ONce you are lined up on the shot you can SEE where the balls are going to collide.

If the line you end up on is exactly the same as where the ghost ball would be (if it were a real ball) then that does NOT mean you used Ghost Ball Imagination to get to that line.
Anyway, I know where you stand on this and it's fine. I think my experiment shows adequately that it's difficult to place an imaginary ball precisely.

The only difference is your ghost ball is a DISC not a ball. JOSE PARICA style
You are lining up the shot to control the cueball, you surely must know where the cueball is going.

 

[genomachino]

Ghost ball is huge if..................

Here's the part that CTE leaves out, for me. With ghost ball, there is an understanding of the tangent line. When most of us learned how to play, the tangent line was the most important concept there was, as it showed us the resulting path of the cueball.

Although people slam ghost ball, it's the basis for how we play position. We look at the angle the cueball will leave the object ball from, and base our application of english on that angle. The angle is there for the "seeing". If you can't see "ghost ball", how do you ever make a carom shot? How do you play a safety, placing the cueball in a certain place after not pocketing a ball? If you see the angle, you're applying ghost ball theory whether you want to admit it or not.

Hi there,

The ghost ball is huge if you know how to use it and don't expect too much from it.

The main reason for the ghost ball is to see how much of the ball we need to hit. I guess you would call this fractional aiming.

We need to know how much of the object ball we are hitting because once we get down on the shot it is almost the only info we have left.
After a player understands exactly where the eyes need to be they can see how valuable it is to know this info as Perfectly as possible.

Every once in a while I will have a student that says that he just knows by feel and thats good enough for him. So I set up some blind shots where you can't see the object ball and the hole very good and only then does the student understand how important it is to know exactly how much of the object ball they need to hit.

Many players say that they do not fractionally aim but when it comes right down to it and I'm giving them a lesson they realise that they actually are. They just don't know the fraction but they know how much they want to hit naturally. They are guessing but they are guessing how much. Do I hit this much or that much? The players that do this better naturally usually play better than those that don't.

I teach players to measure any shot on the table so they know exactly how much of the ob they want to hit. Now with the eyes in the correct position your body can be in the most correct position also. The more info you have on any shot the better. Believe me this info is important if you want to aim as good as you possibly can.

The main thing is Perfect,Perfect,Perfect. The things we can do Perfectly we need to do if at all possible when we aim a shot because there are to many other things to worry about that we can not make Perfect.

To me the ghost ball should be used for measuring. It's too bad we can't put a ghost ball down on the table to measure a shot. The next best thing is to know how to measure each shot almost perfectly so you know how much of the cue ball is going to hit the object ball.

In my video there is a segment that shows players how to measure the amount of the ob that you need to hit with a few simple manuvers with your cue stick. Totally legal also. The ghost ball is an absolute must while you are practicing this to see if your measurements are right.

But if you want the ghost ball to help shoot the shot by imagining it during the shot you are asking way too much of this great measuring device.

It's a great measuring device and that's all............

 

[cuekev]

You aiming guys make my head hurt!!! .... lol

There are 2 ways to aim only:

1) Envisioning the whole shot, then consideration of the detail parts of it.
(An Art form of aiming).

or

2) Considering all the details that go into the shot, and then trying to envision what the whole shot will do. (A Scientific [or Engineering] form of aiming).

This is almost like the difference between Integral and Differential Calculus.
When you aim you are trying to hit the contact point. How you approach that though is left up to you.

I aim using #1, works for me. I have always had a great imagination and can visualize things with no problem.

I like your answer Snapshot9. I don't think our minds work well when just given part of the picture. Just the contact point or creating a ghost ball. I try to envision the cue ball making contact with the object ball and how the object ball will respond. I visualize the twist of the object ball after contact and try to create as vivid as posible a movie of the object ball traveling to the center of the pocket. Then I put myself into the movie. (Pleasures of Small Motions by Bob Fancher)

 

[thefonz]

interesting points of view

In snooker, where potting accuracy(shotmaking) and technique is emphasized more than in pool, don't most players recognize the potting angles and employ a ghost ball for aiming? i could be wrong, but out of all the video's i've watched and books i've read, they always seem to describe shots as 1/2, 1/4, thickish 3/4 ball etc......... and training aids seem to promote drills that utlilize a ghost ball.

 

[BRKNRUN]

Using the same measuring tool that would be available to me if I were at the table, my brain.

I kind of like to consider my brain the most powerful tool I have...:wink:

GB is a powerful conversion tool....There ARE some measuring devices available while at the table...I could probably not do the paper trick either...but I feel I can be pretty darn accurate at the table.

I have mentioned this before, (I should make a video on this but I won't)

I am farily certain you can align yourself with the HH 3-line aim points.

Center CB to 1/4 OB
Center CB to edge OB
1/4 CB to edge of OB
1/4 CB to edge of OB (Then pivot to center) - (only used for really thin cuts)

I am also farily certain you can see either a "hair" inside or a "hair" outside those aim lines....(That gives you 10 aim lines if you only use the last one with no other adjustments)

Once you determin the GB-center...it imediatly converts into one of those aim lines. Some might devide them up even further but I have not found a need to yet....

The method I use to meaure the GB-center is to stand in line with the OB and the "target" I intend to shoot it....(may not be a pocket)

With your tip on the cloth behind the OB you will see a reflection of said tip in the OB....When that "reflection" is about half way up the OB the tip will be GB-center...Even further is that you can see where the OB gets darker or lighter...The bottom of the ball will be darker of course...With about 10 minutes of practice...you can place your tip right where the GB-center would be..(Take an actual ball and place it wher the GB would be then notice where the ball touches the table...remove the ball and place your tip there....NOTE on the OB where the reflection is...for me it seems to be just below the horizon line where the ball goes from dark to light...For the way I see it..if the tip is in the light...I am too far back)

Now as soon as you find that spot...you will convert it into one of the aim lines above....

Once you have converted the shot...you can stop...walk around the table..take a drink....go potty...smoke some potty....whatever you want....as long as those balls don't move..you already know your aim line...just take your stance and shoot....

No pivots required.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

My conclusion is that I can't see the GB in the right spot even though I feel that I am lined up perfectly.

Hence, the thread.

Which you predictably title "Why Ghost Ball Aiming Fails YOU".

What makes you think everybody is afflicted with your limitations? Lots of players use ghost ball more accurately than you use CTE. Get over yourself.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Which you predictably title "Why Ghost Ball Aiming Fails YOU".

What makes you think everybody is afflicted with your limitations? Lots of players use ghost ball more accurately than you use CTE. Get over yourself.

pj
chgo

And lots of players don't.

Don't worry about the title, poetic license.

Do the test. It's simple.

What makes you think everyone can use Ghost Ball accurately? Or that everyone even agrees on what Ghost Ball is?

As this thread shows people have many different ideas of what GB is. Even you do some sort of shifting when you get down on the shot. What are you hunting for? An imaginary ball?



Go ahead and describe your routine for getting down on the aiming line. Let's see how many people think that this is the way to go.

You seem offended? What's the problem? Does it bother you to have the simple method challenged?

Why do you think that so many folks chime in and say that they have improved after learning CTE? Presumably they all learned GB in some form or another. Why then are they able to use CTE and pocket more balls?

Why don't you get over yourself Pat. Just a little while ago you were chastising me for telling Dave Alciatore to step up and be a scholar or go away. YOu said everyone's voice (and opinion) is welcome.

Well Dave stated that he uses a SPOT on the CLOTH where the CENTER of the Ghost Ball WOULD BE.

I do not think that he can reliably find a spot on the cloth where the ghost ball would be with any useful degree of accuracy. His statement about how he uses GB along with his link to kindergarten clips about GB are what prompted me to test his statement.

I found that I cannot reliably judge the GB center spot on the cloth (paper) and invited him and you and anyone else to repeat the experiment and see how well you do.

Because you see you and Dave and others keep clubbing CTE users over the head with GB by saying that GB is geometrically correct and accurate.

Which it is - ON PAPER. But not in practice. Not without lots of adjustment and hit-a-million balls practice.

That's my contention. I will be glad to retract it if you show me conclusively that you can point to the GB Center Spot consistently and accurately. I can't and I don't think that you can either. I think that you can get close as I did and then you "adjust" into the shot. You do it consciously with a lot of little fidgeting AFTER you are down on the shot. Other people just feel it and take their best guess.

We all know (or think we know) what GB is. So let's talk about why it is or isn't reliable. I presented my reasoning.

How about a credible refutation?

 

[JB Cases]

I kind of like to consider my brain the most powerful tool I have...:wink:

GB is a powerful conversion tool....There ARE some measuring devices available while at the table...I could probably not do the paper trick either...but I feel I can be pretty darn accurate at the table.

I have mentioned this before, (I should make a video on this but I won't)

I am farily certain you can align yourself with the HH 3-line aim points.

Center CB to 1/4 OB
Center CB to edge OB
1/4 CB to edge of OB
1/4 CB to edge of OB (Then pivot to center) - (only used for really thin cuts)

I am also farily certain you can see either a "hair" inside or a "hair" outside those aim lines....(That gives you 10 aim lines if you only use the last one with no other adjustments)

Once you determin the GB-center...it imediatly converts into one of those aim lines. Some might devide them up even further but I have not found a need to yet....

The method I use to meaure the GB-center is to stand in line with the OB and the "target" I intend to shoot it....(may not be a pocket)

With your tip on the cloth behind the OB you will see a reflection of said tip in the OB....When that "reflection" is about half way up the OB the tip will be GB-center...Even further is that you can see where the OB gets darker or lighter...The bottom of the ball will be darker of course...With about 10 minutes of practice...you can place your tip right where the GB-center would be..(Take an actual ball and place it wher the GB would be then notice where the ball touches the table...remove the ball and place your tip there....NOTE on the OB where the reflection is...for me it seems to be just below the horizon line where the ball goes from dark to light...For the way I see it..if the tip is in the light...I am too far back)

Now as soon as you find that spot...you will convert it into one of the aim lines above....

Once you have converted the shot...you can stop...walk around the table..take a drink....go potty...smoke some potty....whatever you want....as long as those balls don't move..you already know your aim line...just take your stance and shoot....

No pivots required.

So now we have another method to use GB. And who was complaining that CTE has a lot of variations?

Your information is good and defines how you have personally overcome the very basic shortcoming with how GB works according to Dr. Dave Alciatore's statement in the other thread. I have no doubt that such techniques as you describe here help tremendously to get as close to GB center as humanly possible using the tools you are allowed to when at the table.

I still think that if someone uses Dave's suggested method then they will be inconsistent. I will be happy to repeat the test on the table where I use Dave's method and let someone else mark the spots I point my tip to.

Or anyone else can do that.

So the point is that without some further investigation and discovery/invention the basic GB method fails to allow a player to be consistently on the proper aiming line. I think.

 

[PistolPat]

Aiming methods..................

to sum it up for EVERYONE...there is NO aiming method that doesnt work. Just aiming methods that dont work for certain people in accordance to how HIGH or LOW they are to the shot. People who are more upright and see the shot from more of a birds eye view use the ghostball aiming method A LOT more easier and accurately than people who get down low at an almost level approach. People who try to utilize the ghost ball in a low approach, have to look at the shot first from above to see where the ghost ball needs to be and THEN they have to memorize where that is while getting down and aiming into that spot. That IMHO is why ghostball method at such a low visual is harder than when upright like some late greats.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
You seem offended? What's the problem?

The problem is your inability to be objective and your use of AzB as your personal therapy session. Everything about the topic of aiming is personal with you. You get your feelings hurt over your religious devotion to CTE so you attack what you consider CTE's "nemesis" - ghost ball.

I don't care about ghost ball; I just think you're incapable of anything but worship or attack, and this thread is your little attention-getting foot-stamping tantrum for being "disrespected" regarding CTE. Here's a hint: your aiming views are disrespected because they're naive, inaccurate and hopelessly biased, and because you can't keep your childish emotions in check when they're rightfully dismissed.

Does it bother you to have the simple method challenged?

Your "challenge" of ghost ball is no more effective or meaningful than your "defense" of CTE. You're just acting out, as usual. AzB's resident brat.

pj
chgo

 

[Craig Fales]

With me when I use CTE I see exactly where the cueball is going to hit the object ball and so the tangent line is clear.

I feel the exact opposite about Ghost Ball. Yes if properly applied you can see the tangent line BUT if your "ghost ball" is not lined up right then you are not seeing the right tangent line.

Hence my example above about missing the shot but getting perfect shape.

I also don't agree that caroms rely on Ghost Ball. I'd bet anything that carom players don't use GB when they play.

Explain HOW cte allows you to see the CB is going to hit the OB.

 

[BRKNRUN]

So now we have another method to use GB. And who was complaining that CTE has a lot of variations?

Your information is good and defines how you have personally overcome the very basic shortcoming with how GB works according to Dr. Dave Alciatore's statement in the other thread. I have no doubt that such techniques as you describe here help tremendously to get as close to GB center as humanly possible using the tools you are allowed to when at the table.

I still think that if someone uses Dave's suggested method then they will be inconsistent. I will be happy to repeat the test on the table where I use Dave's method and let someone else mark the spots I point my tip to.

Or anyone else can do that.

So the point is that without some further investigation and discovery/invention the basic GB method fails to allow a player to be consistently on the proper aiming line. I think.

I never complained about the variations...The problem I had with CTE is the pivoting of the cue at set up throwing off my alignment (and straight stroke)....I never said the system "did not work"

I asked questions in an attempt to understand how the method worked for making shots other than the corner pockets....I did not get any real examples or answers....other than "Aim different" and "No paralell shift"....or..."It will be covered in the DVD".

When I asked for explanation...it fell on blind eyes....As I expect this will also.

I explained how I apply GB as a conversion tool for the way I shoot...(which happens to be a modified end result of one of Hal's systems)

It may not work for you or others....I get that...Once again Hal himself said that some people see it better using this method....some people see it better using that method....I am perfectly fine with that.....If it works for you great...if another method works better for you great....If you can't find a method that works great for you....sorry about your luck.

I will openly answer any questions about the way I shoot/aim......The reason I come on this board is to read about pool...and perhaps find/discuss new ways of making shots....weather it be mechanics, banking, kicking, pattern play, aiming methods...whatever.

I have posed some very good questions about CTE that have been basically "brushed off"...I do have an interest in learning CTE....Just like I had an interest in learning other ways to aim.....Just like the "shish-ke-bob" method (which is a form of CTE) is very effetive for thin cuts....there may be other shots that CTE may apply very well for....Even if I don't use CTE for "Every shot"....It may be beneficial to learn just to see if there are some other shots that it makes easier (For ME) to see.

However.....I do not come on this board to be "sold" something....(unless it is the paid banner advertisements that support the site)...people that bring something up on this forum should be willing to discuss it to the best of thier ability.

Stopping short and saying..."It is in a DVD" or "get the secrets here" is bottom line using the board to "sell" something without going through the proper channels and paying for it...

I understand that some people are very respected within the community and have done some great things for the pool world...I don't believe that should give them a "free pass"

A while back there used to be someone that posted under the name of "IMSHARA" (or something close to that) that would only post about some incredible aiming system and provided a link to a site that would supposedly explain it....but it was only a site to buy the method.

Or course everyone yelled SPAM within seconds of his posts...and that poster may have been banned or just gave up...I don't know cause I have not seen those posts for a while.

Stan Shuffet....Very respected teacher of pool...has a son that is a world beater at pool....Has others say what a great teacher of pool he is.....I ask this...what has he actually contributed on this board of a technical nature? How is this any different than "IMSHARA"

I for one would love to know what input Stan has regarding any CTE discussions....but I guarantee it won't happen on this board....and unfortunatley I am not one of the "in the loop" people that get the information.....aparantly you are...since you have droped the "wouldn't you like to know" line a few times to GMT.

Frankly...I am tired of the CTE carrot that is being dangled on this board....A group that claimes how great the system is...puts out conflicting information regarding the system...(even has some retracted because now it is "wrong) then says...if you want to know you have to buy this DVD....Then basically goes Nah-nah, nah-nah, nah-naaaaah....I know how it works and you don't.

Then on top of all that.....We have a known top shooter that comes on here and says nothing more than...."hey"...Is what I am doing CTE? I want to learn......Within an hour we have a poster (that I think has seen the DVD) reply with PM sent....and then Stan saying he can explain it to him in short order....No referral to a DVD?????

It is all a tease....and on because it is on this board..it is a real turn off....I would rather see the Banner Ad...click on it and see the "marketing" for CTE that way......I would probably buy it.

I feel CTE should either be fully discussed on this board or not discussed at all....All of the "inbetween" stuff about CTE is makeing me feel disrespected and is tainting my desire to study the method.

Yes.....you hit a sore spot