To perform a task in an objective manner (whether it's shooting an OB into a pocket or climbing straight up the face of a rock cliff) means the process does not require personal opinion or individual judgement. If rock climbing is the task, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of hand-grabs and feet-placement combinations that one could use. Simply telling a person to use their hands, feet, and eyes to climb the cliff does not constitute an objective climbing method. Too much is left up to personal opinion/judgement, making the climb subject-dependent. In other words, it would be the climber's individual choices that gets him (or her) to the top. This is the subjective method.
Now let's apply the same logic to aiming pool shots. The rote method of learning to aim is purely subjective. Each player learns through their own renditions of trial and error. Ghostball is also subjective because it is nearly impossible for the average player to accurately visualize the center of an invisible ball with repeated consistency. Traditional fractional aiming by the quarters method is subjective due to the fact that choosing the appropriate aim point is purely based on individual interpretation of angles. However, a fractional aiming method that provides this information would be objective because there would be no individual interpretations. Pivot systems, which includes the CTE manual pivot method, are actually objective within specific shot parameters, then become subjective when shots fall outside of those parameters, forcing the player to estimate or guesstimate some sort of compensation or visual correction. Most players develop their own way of doing it. Just go surfing on YouTube for 30 minutes and you'll find numerous players doing their "own" version of CTE. That alone is proof that either the system is too complicated to learn as designed (like studying string theory), or it's purely subjective, dependent on personal perceptions/opinions.
This has been the aiming debate for as long as I can remember.....we hear "this system is objective, unlike these other systems that are not objective." Well, here's a good test for determining objectivity:
If a player can use a certain method to pocket a ball and get immediate results in a quick, simple, and accurate manner, within a few seconds, then show another player the same method, who then gets the same immediate results, the method is undeniably objective. It would be like numbering the rocks for hand-holds and feet-placements on a rock cliff so every climber has a guaranteed path to the top if they prefer to take it.
If you have to spend weeks or years trying to figure out a certain method, whether your shooting pool or climbing rocks, the method you're using is not objective.
That's why it's taking so long to learn, because the method is subject-dependent, better known as subjective.
What are your thoughts? Anyone?
Now let's apply the same logic to aiming pool shots. The rote method of learning to aim is purely subjective. Each player learns through their own renditions of trial and error. Ghostball is also subjective because it is nearly impossible for the average player to accurately visualize the center of an invisible ball with repeated consistency. Traditional fractional aiming by the quarters method is subjective due to the fact that choosing the appropriate aim point is purely based on individual interpretation of angles. However, a fractional aiming method that provides this information would be objective because there would be no individual interpretations. Pivot systems, which includes the CTE manual pivot method, are actually objective within specific shot parameters, then become subjective when shots fall outside of those parameters, forcing the player to estimate or guesstimate some sort of compensation or visual correction. Most players develop their own way of doing it. Just go surfing on YouTube for 30 minutes and you'll find numerous players doing their "own" version of CTE. That alone is proof that either the system is too complicated to learn as designed (like studying string theory), or it's purely subjective, dependent on personal perceptions/opinions.
This has been the aiming debate for as long as I can remember.....we hear "this system is objective, unlike these other systems that are not objective." Well, here's a good test for determining objectivity:
If a player can use a certain method to pocket a ball and get immediate results in a quick, simple, and accurate manner, within a few seconds, then show another player the same method, who then gets the same immediate results, the method is undeniably objective. It would be like numbering the rocks for hand-holds and feet-placements on a rock cliff so every climber has a guaranteed path to the top if they prefer to take it.
If you have to spend weeks or years trying to figure out a certain method, whether your shooting pool or climbing rocks, the method you're using is not objective.
That's why it's taking so long to learn, because the method is subject-dependent, better known as subjective.
What are your thoughts? Anyone?