What is feel aiming?

JoeW said:
Touch your nose with your finger and you are coordinating two moving objects in three dimensional space. How do you do that?

I think that “feel aiming” is about gaining experience and allowing the mind to control the phenomena. You cannot tell someone how to ride a bicycle. It is something you have to learn through body learning. All the words won’t do it. However, we can set up aids to assist one learn.

I think it is unfortunate when players do not allow themselves to learn where the front of the cue ball is on every shot. They do not allow themselves to learn to “see” angles nor do they learn from the experience of simply watching how two balls react when various kinds of spin are used.

All of these things require closely observed experiences in which we learn how hand, eye, and muscle interact to produce an outcome. With sufficient experience one can learn to “thread a needle,” see that a shot will or will not go, and can “see” that a particular position can or cannot be obtained.

When playing pool we call it “feel” when riding a bike we call it “balance.” It is all different types of non-verbal body learning, nothing mystical just something that cannot be communicated in words.

No systems player can tell us the exact amount of power, exact cut angle or relative spin they place on a cue ball. The permissible error on some shots is so small that such numbers would have to be related in thousands of an inch, 100th of oz of power. And if they could tell us these things they would not be able to tell us how to calibrate the muscles or determine the relative angles for many shots. Someone stated before. It is all feel.
Click to expand...


Joe,
I agree with so much of what you said. There just isnt a mathematical explanation for something you need to be able to feel. For some players they are so far off from it that I feel they need a formula to get them close enough so that they can see it and learn to communicate their intuition with a game that they cannot seem to be able to understand.

That is what you will find in my book and only time will tell if people will consider it valid or not. I know its surely valid for me so I have no doubt whatsoever.

Reference systems can get you close enough to be able to see it, once you see it you begin to understand how to apply the feel.

A great banker once showed me something a long time ago that was a reference he used and then he looked at me and said, "All I know is that is a really powerful point in pool" just think about it when you pass those balls.

I did some and couldnt make any sense of what he told me and went back to what I was doing which wasnt working. Then one day I got to thinking about this reference point and went back and it clicked, I had to figure out how to make those banks work based on finding the reference point and I had to try my findings based on that reference point and I did and now I rarely miss a passover bank shot near the bottom rail and I hit most of the others.

This taught me a lot about pool when it comes to reference points.

They themselves are not perfect answers to equations involving shot making, banking etc. however

They are perfect references for learning how to see what you need to see to be able to do what you need to do therefore they are visual, they adjust your visual intelligence and in my humble opinion are about as perfect as its going to get.

336Robin :thumbup: http://274928807619529663.weebly.com/

aimisthegameinpool@yahoo.com
 
Hussa,


"Aiming by feel" means nothing else that somebody already shot the ball several times (10.000-1.000.000 or how many ever).
He see it and knows immediatley and unconsiously how to make this ball. Even if he/she doesn t know if he s using a system....he sure does. But he is one of the luckiest guys because he s so talented with his visualization that he can do it unconciously.

jmho,

Ingo
 
JoeyA said:
Have you tried making the shots using CTE/Pro One as Stan shows in the video?

Are you able to make the vast majority of shots using CTE/Pro One?
Click to expand...
Joey,

I would certainly hope the pre-selected alignments and pivots work for the specific examples in the video. However, the real test for the system is applying it to random shots at the table over a wide range of cut angles and CB-OB distances. Based on my understanding, the keys to using the system effectively are knowing:
  1. which alignment and pivot to use for a particular shot.
  2. how to make subtle adjustments when the selected alignment and pivot do not create a cut angle necessary to pocket the particular shot.
The many examples on the DVD are great, but there didn't seem to be much guidance on how to apply the system and use it effectively when faced with a random shot at the table, IMO. Regardless, I still see value in the CTE approach for some people.

How do you personally decide which alignment and pivot to use (i.e., how do judge the cut angle range for a particular shot)? Is is just obvious to you based on your experience, or do you need to think about it sometimes? Also, what percentage of shots do you think the 6 different lines of aim cover, if you follow the procedure exactly, without adjustment?

I am not asking these questions to be mean or disrespectful to you and Stan. I just think these are important questions for people who want to use the system effectively and consistently. Also, to me, the advertising claims of the system seem to be at odds with the realities of its implementation.

Respectfully,
Dave
 
JoeW said:
I very much agree and think that a substantial amount of learning to play well is about larning to quiet the vebalizations. This allows the brain to function better. Newbies should have it well planted in their brain.

Think in words while standing.
Stop thinking in words when you are down on the shot.
Click to expand...

Joe,

Just some thoughts I have.

Quieting the chatter is probably the Holy Grail of all athletic processes, and not limited to athletics. Not all minds operate similarly and finding this correct mixture of focus , concentration, and a rational mind that stays out of the way to allow automatic function is fleeting for almost all.

I have started to look at aiming systems from the point of view that although they are engaging our thought processes, which increases the chatter, they can distract our rational/analytical minds. This distraction gives our thinking parts something to do and frees up our pool brain to emerge when our guard is down. This is the magic of something new in your game.

At first there is some uncertainty about pulling the trigger, but if the balls are dropping, a sense of trust can be initiated. This is what I've found in my game and it seems IMO, I've made considerable progress in a short period of time. I'm allowing these distractions to set up house and have been getting reacquainted with my basic pool instincts that seemed to be lost and buried. If you have a tooth ache, and you stub your toe, you forget about your tooth for a while. :wink:

This birth control pill method for the thinking man is my placebo for dealing with the control portion of my game. It thinks it knows how everything should be done and tries to get it done. Unfortunately I find that if I let it drive, I get in a lot of wrecks.

Best,
Mike
 
dr_dave said:
Joey,

I would certainly hope the pre-selected alignments and pivots work for the specific examples in the video. However, the real test for the system is applying it to random shots at the table over a wide range of cut angles and CB-OB distances. Based on my understanding, the keys to using the system effectively are knowing:
  1. which alignment and pivot to use for a particular shot.
  2. how to make subtle adjustments when the selected alignment and pivot do not create a cut angle necessary to pocket the particular shot.
The many examples on the DVD are great, but there didn't seem to be much guidance on how to apply the system and use it effectively when faced with a random shot at the table, IMO. Regardless, I still see value in the CTE approach for some people.

How do you personally decide which alignment and pivot to use (i.e., how do judge the cut angle range for a particular shot)? Is is just obvious to you based on your experience, or do you need to think about it sometimes? Also, what percentage of shots do you think the 6 different lines of aim cover, if you follow the procedure exactly, without adjustment?

I am not asking these questions to be mean or disrespectful to you and Stan. I just think these are important questions for people who want to use the system effectively and consistently. Also, to me, the advertising claims of the system seem to be at odds with the realities of its implementation.

Respectfully,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,
I don't mean to trivialize your requests but it seems to me that answering any questions about CTE/Pro One is a waste of time.

For me personally, I don't care to get bogged down in the "discussions" about CTE/Pro One. It's just not that important to me.

The naysayers talk out of both sides of their mouth. In one thread they are playing Mr. Nice Guy, in the next thread they are being disrespectful to the same posters they are hoping to coax some information out of them.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me if you showed Stan some professional courtesy, by asking him if it was all right to post his CTE/Pro One information on your website.

Respectfully,
JoeyA
 
Mikjary said:
Joe,

Just some thoughts I have.

Quieting the chatter is probably the Holy Grail of all athletic processes, and not limited to athletics. Not all minds operate similarly and finding this correct mixture of focus , concentration, and a rational mind that stays out of the way to allow automatic function is fleeting for almost all.

I have started to look at aiming systems from the point of view that although they are engaging our thought processes, which increases the chatter, they can distract our rational/analytical minds. This distraction gives our thinking parts something to do and frees up our pool brain to emerge when our guard is down. This is the magic of something new in your game.

At first there is some uncertainty about pulling the trigger, but if the balls are dropping, a sense of trust can be initiated. This is what I've found in my game and it seems IMO, I've made considerable progress in a short period of time. I'm allowing these distractions to set up house and have been getting reacquainted with my basic pool instincts that seemed to be lost and buried. If you have a tooth ache, and you stub your toe, you forget about your tooth for a while. :wink:

This birth control pill method for the thinking man is my placebo for dealing with the control portion of my game. It thinks it knows how everything should be done and tries to get it done. Unfortunately I find that if I let it drive, I get in a lot of wrecks.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Internal humming is another way to stop the verbal dialog. Now about those train wrecks ...
 
Koop said:
I've never seen a robot playing pool yet...only humans and some use systems and some don't, but the some who don't really are using a system that's been modified or don't admit or know they're using one.

What do you see on any given shot and how do you come to determine, in a non-robotic fashion, what to do and how to do it?
Click to expand...

We may be at the old familiar semantics impasse again.

I could not agree that everybody uses an aiming "system"
tho I would say everybody uses an aiming "method".
The difference being, one uses a system if he doesn't know where to aim.
If you know where to aim, there is no need for a system.

If that isn't enough of a problem. As others have pointed out
on many occasions(including me), most of the "discussions" about
aiming, are actually about 'sighting' and/or visualization and have little
or nothing to do with aiming.

Dale
 
Last edited:
JoeyA said:
dr_dave said:
Joey,

I would certainly hope the pre-selected alignments and pivots work for the specific examples in the video. However, the real test for the system is applying it to random shots at the table over a wide range of cut angles and CB-OB distances. Based on my understanding, the keys to using the system effectively are knowing:
  1. which alignment and pivot to use for a particular shot.
  2. how to make subtle adjustments when the selected alignment and pivot do not create a cut angle necessary to pocket the particular shot.
The many examples on the DVD are great, but there didn't seem to be much guidance on how to apply the system and use it effectively when faced with a random shot at the table, IMO. Regardless, I still see value in the CTE approach for some people.

How do you personally decide which alignment and pivot to use (i.e., how do judge the cut angle range for a particular shot)? Is is just obvious to you based on your experience, or do you need to think about it sometimes? Also, what percentage of shots do you think the 6 different lines of aim cover, if you follow the procedure exactly, without adjustment?

I am not asking these questions to be mean or disrespectful to you and Stan. I just think these are important questions for people who want to use the system effectively and consistently. Also, to me, the advertising claims of the system seem to be at odds with the realities of its implementation.

Respectfully,
Dave
Click to expand...
Dave,
I don't mean to trivialize your requests but it seems to me that answering any questions about CTE/Pro One is a waste of time.

For me personally, I don't care to get bogged down in the "discussions" about CTE/Pro One. It's just not that important to me.
Click to expand...
I hope you reconsider at some point, because many people (me included) respect your opinion, even if we don't always agree on things.

JoeyA said:
The naysayers talk out of both sides of their mouth. In one thread they are playing Mr. Nice Guy, in the next thread they are being disrespectful to the same posters they are hoping to coax some information out of them.
Click to expand...
I hope you don't think of me as a two-faced "naysayer." Some people might not like my style at times, but I'm sure most people know my goal is always to learn, help improve fundamental understanding, and help expand credible knowledge in our wonderful sport. I might offend some people at times along this journey, but I think that is sometimes unavoidable, based on the nature of my purpose.

JoeyA said:
I'm still waiting for you to tell me if you showed Stan some professional courtesy, by asking him if it was all right to post his CTE/Pro One information on your website.
Click to expand...
I assume you are referring to my concise summary of Stan's version of CTE, as I interpreted it from his DVD. To be clear, I did not ask Stan for permission to post this summary on my website. And to be honest, I don't think what I did was inappropriate in any way.

Some people have claimed that my concise summary "gives away for free" everything of value on Stan's DVD, and will discourage people from purchasing it. Even if this is the case, then I still don't think the information I posted is inappropriate. However, I honestly think the information I posted actually adds value to the DVD. IMO, the concise summary is a useful reference for people who have viewed the DVD. The DVD provides lots of examples; but, IMO, it doesn't offer a clear summary of how the approach applies to any shot at the table. Based on multiple viewings of the DVD, I did my best to label different types of shots and assign approximate ball-hit fractions (cut angle) ranges so it is clear which alignment and pivot is appropriate for different ranges of shots. I also summarized Stan's clear advice on when and how much to change the bridge length, when appropriate.

IMO, the true value of Stan's DVD is in the audio/visual explanations, illustrations, and examples. He does a good job of presenting many examples in a way the viewer can try them out on his or her own table. It is also helpful to see good players (Stevie, Landon, and Stan) demonstrating the method.

I'm sorry you and others think the information I posted is inappropriate. Obviously, I strongly disagree.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
I did not ask Stan for permission to post this summary on my website[/COLOR][/B]. And to be honest, I don't think what I did was inappropriate in any way.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up.
Regards,
JoeyA
 
ThePoliteSniper said:
What system do I use to calculate throw, curve and squirt?
Click to expand...

If you absolutley want to *fish* a shot like this out of your hat.......:

Even so in this case i would say, that he played the shot several times, still has *this picture* in his head- recalls it and just plays it.
the *calculating guy* would think several minutes about it, trying to remember what he did last time shooting a ball like this- then trying perhaps to compare his thoughts-and shoot then....
The *aim by feeling* player looks at it, and play is *unconcsiously*- But here, how i wrote- in my opinion he s just *remembering* faster or so. Sorry, but perhaps my english is too low to explain really what i want to tell you. Hope you understand what i mean.
Imo also a guy who just learned pool with *try and error* is using a kind of system- even if he s perhaps not sure if he s using something like a system. Hope this makes sense for you,

lg
Ingo
 
Feel aiming, experience, intuition.... none of it can be easily transferred from person to person. It cannot be taught in an objective manner or described exactly. By itself, there is no geometrical basis - only experience.

Preshot Routine (PSR) differs from person to person. Although a PSR can be taught, it's NEVER the exact same from person to person. As a matter of fact, although the procedure might be the same from shot-to-shot, there are unavoidable variations that make it impossible to replicate exactly.

Systems (regardless which one) provide a transferable knowledge base that CAN be taught and many of which are based on objective references.

For some reason, many people on here BBQ pivot systems for being inexact, guesswork, too finite to be practical, etc. However, the fact remains---- so is everything else.

So, when someone is trying to cut a ball 53 degrees and needs to see the base of the ghostball at 1.125" from the equator of the OB--- no human actually can tell 1.2" from 1.3" from 1.05" to 1.121"--- it's experience that actually makes the ball--- not an "objective" reference.

Nobody can describe their "feel." That doesn't mean that playing by feel is bad. It's not SUPERIOR to system aiming because that method of play is no more geometrically correct than any system. You can DEF "feel" a ball into the frickin' rail on the case ball (we've all done it).

I believe the math for the pivot systems are perfect - -- however, perception / vision changes from person to person which affects how one person picks up the info versus the next. Someone might THINK they see the CTEL, but they really don't (you get the idea).

Feel is only "educated guesswork." So, those who are true feel players shouldn't knock system players who play just as well.

My 2 cents.
Dave
 
Just a quick point about MY subconscious mind. I took a few years off and started playing again in November. My fundamentals are still good but I need to hit a few hundred/thousand? shots to get my aim and judgement back to where it used to be. I can still blast straight in shots at break speed but miss many cuts I should never miss. I plan to start doing drills for those shots next but up to now I swear my subconscious mind is leaving me straight in on nearly ever ball. One, two, three, even four rail shape and the CB settles nearly perfectly straight in on the OB. I know I don't want to be there, but I believe my brain must not be happy with my pocketing percentage on the cuts and just PUTS me there all the time. That's my theory anyway. I'm tired of drawing back and spinning off the rails for my next straight in shot so I plan to do cut drills for the next couple weeks and see if my brain thinks it's ok to let me play like normal one day. My hope is that once I get the muscle memory and shot recognition back for cut shots I can get back to where I was before I quit. That's what feel is to me -recognizing the shot in front of me, remembering what works for that shot and just letting it go.
-just my .02
 
For me, its when I get up in the middle of the night, half asleep and I go to the bathroom. If I feel a warm, wet feeling on my right foot, I know I'm too far right and need to adjust to the left and I know that my adjustment is too far left when I get that same feeling on my left foot, so I just pivot 1/2 back to hit center.

FWIW
 
LOL

If you had just aligned yourself with the left edge of the toilet and THEN pivoted, you'd be dead center and your feet wouldn't be wet... :thumbup:
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Feel aiming, experience, intuition.... none of it can be easily transferred from person to person. It cannot be taught in an objective manner or described exactly. By itself, there is no geometrical basis - only experience.

Preshot Routine (PSR) differs from person to person. Although a PSR can be taught, it's NEVER the exact same from person to person. As a matter of fact, although the procedure might be the same from shot-to-shot, there are unavoidable variations that make it impossible to replicate exactly.

Systems (regardless which one) provide a transferable knowledge base that CAN be taught and many of which are based on objective references.

For some reason, many people on here BBQ pivot systems for being inexact, guesswork, too finite to be practical, etc. However, the fact remains---- so is everything else.

So, when someone is trying to cut a ball 53 degrees and needs to see the base of the ghostball at 1.125" from the equator of the OB--- no human actually can tell 1.2" from 1.3" from 1.05" to 1.121"--- it's experience that actually makes the ball--- not an "objective" reference.

Nobody can describe their "feel." That doesn't mean that playing by feel is bad. It's not SUPERIOR to system aiming because that method of play is no more geometrically correct than any system. You can DEF "feel" a ball into the frickin' rail on the case ball (we've all done it).

I believe the math for the pivot systems are perfect - -- however, perception / vision changes from person to person which affects how one person picks up the info versus the next. Someone might THINK they see the CTEL, but they really don't (you get the idea).

Feel is only "educated guesswork." So, those who are true feel players shouldn't knock system players who play just as well.

My 2 cents.
Dave
Click to expand...
Here we go again with the same unsubstantiated claim. If you simply left out that bolded statement, then I would have complimented you on an excellent post. But you had to inject the belief that the math of these pivot systems are "perfect" or "exact", which is precisely what many of us have problems with. The moment the pivot system advocates stop preaching that these systems are perfect, exact, or that they require absolutely no feel/subconscious adjustments to make them work, then I'm sure most of the so-called "detractors" would stop posting in these threads because they wouldn't have anything to argue about. I know I wouldn't have any objections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top