Yet another CTE thread (sigh)

boogieman said:
IMHO if you're an SL 4, you already know how to aim. With never having seen you shoot I would be willing to bet that most of the problems you are experiencing are related to fundamentals and stroke.

There are many more videos on fundamentals but in all honestly it would be a HUGE benefit to take some lessons with a good instructor. They can analyze what you're doing right and wrong and help you with any issues.

If you get your fundamentals rock solid (or at least better) you can self analyze why you missed much easier. You'll often find it's nothing to do with aim. Stay down until all balls have stopped moving, even if you miss. Just look at what's going on with OB and CB and you're miles ahead already. You're programming your "pool computer" and you have to input the results to do so most efficiently.

If, after you have tamed your fundamentals, you still feel the need for an aiming system, then it will be MUCH easier to learn as you have a consistent stroke to do so with.

If you're learning angles, burn tangent line and natural follow angle into your head. Once you have them other angles are much easier to recognize.
Click to expand...

I've taken lessons with an SL7 (who helped me a little and gave me some stroking drills, which have helped), and an SL9, who came recommended as a coach who was very good with fixing problems with fundamentals, including stance, alignment, and stroke.

The latter lesson really helped. While I can't say my fundamentals permanently fixed, they are SO much better than they were. I know my fundamentals are better because as I mentioned in post #1 here, I can very reliably (no, not 100% but around 80%) pot balls when the angles are prescribed by setting up standard shots using exact diamond positioning of the OB and CB, and I use the appropriate 1/4 ball, 1/2 ball, and 3/4 ball aiming. It's when I'm viewing normal random shots, such as those experienced while running a rack that I'm missing, and I suspect it's because I'm not estimating the angles (or the hits are somewhere between 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4). When I practice a prescribed shot, and slowly move the CB to either increase or decrease the angle, I have been mostly successful in adjusting for angles in between the "big three". (No, I am not yet using pivoting to adjust for intermediate angles). As I mentioned, it's the shots in the middle of the table that I have trouble recognizing the required "home" 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 aim from which to adjust, or that require no adjustments because they are dead-nuts 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4.
 
cookie man said:
So which is it? Experience based on the way he has always done it, or problems because he tried to do it a very different way.

It means something because you argue we are making balls no different then we always made balls. . That however is just not true, as stated in this testimonial. CTE aiming is different and there is an adjustment on how to see the shots to make them with CTE, so there would naturally be an adjustment in going back to your old way of seeing the shot.
Click to expand...
I am going to stop responding to this gibberish as you are ruining the OP's thread. Ironic that you are the one to cause the disruption. I know you always have to have the last snarky comment so go ahead.
 
OK, what I think I'm hearing here is that there are no mathematics or methodical ways to look at a shot and determine the "home" aim shot, otherwise someone would have suggested it.

Please note that I am not looking for a shortcut to working out on the table. I was, however, looking for a way to reliably recognize angles to apply the right initial aim point. I suppose it's going to be, as I sorta knew when I qualified it in my original post "Yes, I realize that maybe this question doesn't have an answer and HAMB is the only way, but I thought I'd ask anyway" to spend time at the table and it will come to me organically.
 
dquarasr said:
I've taken lessons with an SL7 (who helped me a little and gave me some stroking drills, which have helped), and an SL9, who came recommended as a coach who was very good with fixing problems with fundamentals, including stance, alignment, and stroke.

The latter lesson really helped. While I can't say my fundamentals permanently fixed, they are SO much better than they were. I know my fundamentals are better because as I mentioned in post #1 here, I can very reliably (no, not 100% but around 80%) pot balls when the angles are prescribed by setting up standard shots using exact diamond positioning of the OB and CB, and I use the appropriate 1/4 ball, 1/2 ball, and 3/4 ball aiming. It's when I'm viewing normal random shots, such as those experienced while running a rack that I'm missing, and I suspect it's because I'm not estimating the angles (or the hits are somewhere between 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4). When I practice a prescribed shot, and slowly move the CB to either increase or decrease the angle, I have been mostly successful in adjusting for angles in between the "big three". (No, I am not yet using pivoting to adjust for intermediate angles). As I mentioned, it's the shots in the middle of the table that I have trouble recognizing the required "home" 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 aim from which to adjust, or that require no adjustments because they are dead-nuts 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4.
Click to expand...
Please don't introduce a potentially stroke damaging thing like a pivot into your game. Playing with a pivot is not going to give you some great advantage or speed your development. It could, possibly, screw you up. Identify the shots you have trouble with and hit them until they are not problems any more. You might also want to go to the Instructor Forum and listen to them. Oh, and posting a video of yourself playing is also a great way to get helpful feedback from AZ.
 
dquarasr said:
OK, what I think I'm hearing here is that there are no mathematics or methodical ways to look at a shot and determine the "home" aim shot, otherwise someone would have suggested it.

Please note that I am not looking for a shortcut to working out on the table. I was, however, looking for a way to reliably recognize angles to apply the right initial aim point. I suppose it's going to be, as I sorta knew when I qualified it in my original post "Yes, I realize that maybe this question doesn't have an answer and HAMB is the only way, but I thought I'd ask anyway" to spend time at the table and it will come to me organically.
Click to expand...
It's been mentioned to you already, I believe. Get a copy of Poolology. It is quite literally exactly what you are looking for.
 
dquarasr said:
OK, what I think I'm hearing here is that there are no mathematics or methodical ways to look at a shot and determine the "home" aim shot, otherwise someone would have suggested it.

Please note that I am not looking for a shortcut to working out on the table. I was, however, looking for a way to reliably recognize angles to apply the right initial aim point. I suppose it's going to be, as I sorta knew when I qualified it in my original post "Yes, I realize that maybe this question doesn't have an answer and HAMB is the only way, but I thought I'd ask anyway" to spend time at the table and it will come to me organically.
Click to expand...
Poolology as recommended in the first post is a mathematical way of figuring out how to aim a shot. Get the book.
 
Dan White said:
I am going to stop responding to this gibberish as you are ruining the OP's thread. Ironic that you are the one to cause the disruption. I know you always have to have the last snarky comment so go ahead.
Click to expand...
The OP's thread is about CTE which you know nothing about but i'm the disrupting one lol. I don't blame you for stopping commenting to me, you are the kind of person that doesn't do well with being proven wrong. We all know that.
 
dquarasr said:
I've taken lessons with an SL7 (who helped me a little and gave me some stroking drills, which have helped), and an SL9, who came recommended as a coach who was very good with fixing problems with fundamentals, including stance, alignment, and stroke.

The latter lesson really helped. While I can't say my fundamentals permanently fixed, they are SO much better than they were. I know my fundamentals are better because as I mentioned in post #1 here, I can very reliably (no, not 100% but around 80%) pot balls when the angles are prescribed by setting up standard shots using exact diamond positioning of the OB and CB, and I use the appropriate 1/4 ball, 1/2 ball, and 3/4 ball aiming. It's when I'm viewing normal random shots, such as those experienced while running a rack that I'm missing, and I suspect it's because I'm not estimating the angles (or the hits are somewhere between 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4). When I practice a prescribed shot, and slowly move the CB to either increase or decrease the angle, I have been mostly successful in adjusting for angles in between the "big three". (No, I am not yet using pivoting to adjust for intermediate angles). As I mentioned, it's the shots in the middle of the table that I have trouble recognizing the required "home" 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4 aim from which to adjust, or that require no adjustments because they are dead-nuts 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4.
Click to expand...
If this is what you are doing then you are not using CTE.
 
dquarasr said:
... with OB one diamond from both rails, and the CB on the line one from the rails, I know I have a perfect 45 degree cut ...
Click to expand...
While there is no need to actually know cut angles for most aiming methods, you might want to be aware of the following.

Cut angles are normally measured from the line between the CB and the ghost ball, not the line between the CB and the OB. So the cut angle (to center pocket) for the shot you described varies according to the distance between the 2 balls, and is always greater than 45 degrees -- a little bit greater if the 2 balls are far apart, a lot greater if they are quite close to each other. Example -- if the CB is just one diamond from the OB (12.5" between the bases of the two balls on a 9-foot table), the cut angle is about 53 degrees; if the CB is six diamonds from the OB, the cut angle is about 46 degrees.
 
Dan White said:
In other words, he plays by feel gained from years of experience.
Click to expand...
The one true thing we know about CTE is that it's users simply don't understand why this must be true. You'd think that some of them would at least admit the possibility - the fact that none do suggests to me that they don't want it to be true.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
The one true thing we know about CTE is that it's users simply don't understand why this must be true. You'd think that some of them would at least admit the possibility - the fact that none do suggests to me that they don't want it to be true.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Or in this crazy world it's really not true and the ones actually using CTE know more about what's happening then the guys sitting behind there computer guessing and thinking about what's happening. A crazy thought i know. Actual experience really does matter.
 
cookie man said:
What exactly were you looking for? Because everything Landon did was CTE related. GUARENTEED
Click to expand...
I imagine but contact geometry produces the same pool as anything else with far less technical concern. I don't know if Landon had the 10 footer at the time but the show on that video is any guy brought up in the ways of pool. You coulda subbed JB for Earl.
 
cookie man said:
Or in this crazy world it's really not true and the ones actually using CTE know more about what's happening then the guys sitting behind there computer guessing and thinking about what's happening. A crazy thought i know. Actual experience really does matter.
Click to expand...
My pool and assertions work on any reasonable pool equipment and gear. Just like real pool.
 
cookie man said:
Maybe the spiraling wouldn't happen if the first two posts in a CTE thread weren't made by non CTE users, just a thought.
Click to expand...
Really though, if you take a short step back. You can see that the first reply with a negative under tone was the third, and coincidently the first by a CTE user. ...just saying ;)
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here is a thread you started less than two months ago:

Terrible stroke

Lost 9-ball last night straight up 4 against 4, 31-22. Lost 8-ball straight up 3 racks to 0 (although two racks were dubious: first rack I inadvertently pocketed the 8 on a weird carom-carom-carom, second rack my SL4 opponent broke and ran out leaving me in my chair for the rack). This extends...
forums.azbilliards.com

Have you fixed your fundamentals? If you have a goofy, broken, crooked, inconsistent stroke, it's impossible to get true, consistent aim because you cannot send the cue ball where you are looking. To check your progress, shoot 20 spot shots with the camera looking straight back at you along the line of the cue ball and cue stick. Spot shots don't require any real angle recognition once you have made one. Work on your fundamentals until you can make 10 spot shots in a row AND they look good on video.

To answer your second question, if there is a cut angle you need to work on, set up progressive practice to work on it.

(For a spot shot, if it is set up so the cue stick passes over a head pocket, it is a simple 30-degree cut and the line of the cue stick and path of the cue ball go directly at the "edge" of the object ball.)
Click to expand...


Bob is correct if you foundation, or basic are not rock solid you have zero to build upon. If you building a three story home, with a crooked foundation. We you stand away from you new home it will not be very true & straight.

Bob's advice is rock solid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top