A long comment on "aiming systems" ...
- Thread starter Grilled Cheese
- Start date
Me too! Yummy!
It seems to me that certain CTE proponents who have a "chicken wing stroke" might do better to spend more time trying to improve their cue stroke then lecturing the rest of us on how to aim.
Pretty sure that just about all the aiming system users on this forum can easily beat you at every billiard game no matter what their technique is like. There are a lot of chicken wingers out there who play pretty sporty.
This is the BEST aiming system. The only time I miss using this system is when I am not doing it right.
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Your chicken wing stroke is kind of comical so I certainly have no problem with you spending all your time talking about aiming systems instead of fixing your cue stroke.
Yes, PIITH I think.
Your chicken wing stroke is kind of comical so I certainly have no problem with you spending all your time talking about aiming systems instead of fixing your cue stroke.
The chicken wing comes from trying to stop you from sexually assaulting me as you are always trying to get close to my ass. I have had to elbow you off my backside so much that it's ingrained now.
As pathetic as my stroke is it's even more pathetic that your biggest hobby is stalking me. At least I talk pool.
But you can get played any day, as long as you stay in front of me. I am not bending over a table with you behind me. I bet your aim is perfect if that should happen. And I don't want to let you show me your stroke technique.
Trust me, I knew what it stood for the first time he posted it.
I just tire of the condescending attitude, and the continual slams, so I thought I'd ask him at what point he thought an Apa player might get that concept. Obviously he doesn't think an sl2 can understand that basic concept, why stop there?
That is too dam funny :killingme:
It's interesting that your avatar title proudly states that you are a "Dale Carnegie Dropout." With your obnoxious persona, it appears that you've discovered the magical formula for losing sales.
Were you planning on buying a case from me? Have I lost a sale? Well, if I have learned nothing else in my 25 years in sales it's that for each lost sale another one magically appears when your product is good. And if I have learned nothing else on these forums it's that no matter what the topic, no matter what the argument there are people on each side and always will be. So for every person like you who tries to play the "lost sale" card another one comes along who says good job standing up to the bullies and let's talk about an order.
But good job being completely predictable. People who troll me on this forum have several predictable stages and you have followed them all.
I'd rather be real than pander to people like you in order to make sales. I may be a lot of things but I am certainly not here to please you or anyone else. If the price of getting sales from people like you is my silence then it's too much to pay. If you were honorable you wouldn't ask it. But we already know you aren't so that point is moot.
But in case you really are in the market for a new case I have a good list of other case makers right here for you to choose from:
http://www.jbcases.com/aboutus.html Bottom of the page.
I am sure any of them will appreciate your business.
Often, people really good at something have some kind of character flaw or personality issue. JB is OCD and can be combative, but he does build the best case out there, no question about it.
Think about how that helps his trade. His OCD works great to produce a perfect product, and the determination to always battle keeps him in the hunt for improvements. JB is no quitter.
Think about how that helps his trade. His OCD works great to produce a perfect product, and the determination to always battle keeps him in the hunt for improvements. JB is no quitter.
If that is the case, those players have big problems. Since pocketing is a consequence or result of aiming and stroke.
I'm not so sure about your swoop stroke / steering / body english theory being a result of poor aim. Here's why.
The very fact and reason and impulse a person has to do that, is proof to themselves that they are NOT on the right line of aim. Meaning, they already sense the correct line of aim. They should wake up from their stupor, and admit they are not set up right. Put a little more discipline and methodology into their pre-shot routine. If CTE helps that, great. It's a decent set-up system.
But that person, because they are steering, swooping or body englishing - understands on some level what the correct line of aim is, but they're not getting down on it right. If they didn't know the line of aim, they would think that whatever they're down on is correct, and they'd stroke straight through and not steer.
Steering automatically means they sense or understand the right line of aim, but they have bad fundamentals and stance. Otherwise, they wouldn't steer, because they would be ignorant of the line of aim.
The only way steering might make a shot is by utilizing deflection (squirt, swerve effects). Because the stroke only (should) go in one line. If the stroke is being curved, it cannot possibly be on the line, and is hitting the CB at an angle.
While I think this is possible, I find it extremely unlikely and exceedingly rare. The only way this could happen is if a person finds a way to perfect stroke outside of the game itself. That's hard to do, because the evidence of good stroke is what the CB does. That's your feed back. Almost requires interaction with the CB. And so long as there is interaction with a ball, there must be some kind of aim. Otherwise, the person is just shooting at the CB, and they never, ever have to raise their eyes from the CB.
So yes, find a table get down, and line up dead center on the CB with the tip. And from there, practice perfect stroke. The measure of which will be what the cue ball does. Will it bounce off the cushion and return perfectly to the tip? Will the CB be hit exactly in the same spot every time? Ah, but to get it to return perfectly to the tip, would have to aim to the cushion. No avoiding it.
But it's impossible to do that and apply it to pool, since you have to look at the OB when shooting, which means the contact with the CB is done without visual guidance during the stroke.
All that said, your example is too radical and irrelevant.
You call it evidence. It is not. It is testimony. We cannot determine what is making that person better. It is the focus? Is it placebo effect? Is it the aiming system?
I'm looking for objective proof. Not testimony. Thus, the search for a geometric/diagram proof is still on. Go back to one of my earlier posts. We live in a 3d universe. It MUST be explainable in a geometric way. It is unfathomable and illogical to assume it cannot be. The world and pool is physical, it must be explainable in real terms. Using angles and measures.
I agree with this. Too bad it's not something I argued against, nor something I disputed. In fact, it's something I also said in my comparisons in previous posts.
Great! Now if CTE is giving you that line of aim....why do people keep working on it so long? Is it not an aiming system? If it is, there should be a procedure, which if followed correctly - gives you the line of aim. Done. Move on to stroke.
Instead, most of the CTE people keep talking about how much work they have to put into it, how much time it takes, how much this and that.
EXCUSES!
Example: Mr. JB, how much work and time did I have to put into the single rail, shallow kick (mirror) system? Answer: Maybe 5 minutes to understand it. DONE. I put almost no work into it, and it gives me the exact spot on the rail I have to hit to cut the ball from the kick. I put it to use immediately. No question about it. No vagueness. Totally concrete.
THAT'S A SYSTEM.
What kind of aiming system is so vague, difficult, confusing and requires so much damn explanation that it requires months or years to master?
Answer: No system at all.
What people are struggling with is simply learning to aim by feel, since CTE and all that defaults back to feel for aiming. Visual memory basically. That, and stroke error.
The rest of your post which I did not quote was more testimonials and/or defense of testimonials. Understand something, I don't care who says what about CTE. I want proof. Not testimony. Not appeals to authority. We all know that authorities have been completely wrong about things throughout history.
This is kinda like saying you can not talk about the affects of a nuclear blast because you never have been in one.
No, it's kinda not.
IOW: unless you drink enough CTE kool-aid you will never, ever, see the edges. You will never be able to understand. You will never be able to comment (much less critize) those that have. You must show that you really and truly want to understand or you will never know CTE nerdvana.
So be a good boy: put on your tin foil hat, put on your Hal Houle decoder ring, and drink up
Lou Figueroa
drink up
damnit
Last edited:
My statements about what is most important and such is indeed opinion, and I did not present them as fact. However, I did put forth several thought experiments to support that opinion and the validity of it.
What is not opinion, is the specific geometric questions and problems regarding CTE, which Dr. Dave has illustrated for us on his website.
His illustration how how the CTE procedure breaks down in providing the line of aim is a thorn in the aimers side, and after all this time - no one has been able to explain him wrong, or add to the explanation of the system to clarify that problem or solve it. Or show why that isn't a problem.
What is conjecture and BS, is you and others making assumptions and assertions as to what I have viewed, studied and tried.
I suppose that no matter how much it is said, you people will never grasp the concept that the burden of proof lies on you to show us how this system indeed provides the actual line of aim.
It's not on me. Because I don't believe it does. Earlier in this thread, I even floated the idea that perhaps we skeptics might have to do all the work for you system-believers, and search for a proof. Because you people don't want to, or are incapable of doing it. What you have presented, fails completely to answer the critic's questions about the system. Moreover, those aren't just simple questions, they are problems and failings of the system that need to be addressed, otherwise, the system is invalid in it's claims.
If a proof for CTE ever arises, it will come from one of us - not from one of you. Because for years now, your "side" keeps offering up the same thing over and over and passing it off as proof. Along with tons of meaningless testimony and lots of excuses, qualifying statements and other crutches.
In my "custom cue mythology" thread, I faced the same wild ignorance. Several people, thinking they are clever, attempted but failed, to turn it around and suggest that I should offer up the proof of why custom cues don't play better than quality production cues. When that was never my position, I claim they do not. It is their claim. The same way it is your claim the system provides the line of aim. I say it does not. Prove it.
That is how logic and reason works. It's not surprise to me that people don't adhere to logic and reason. Given the deplorable state of science education in America. In a nutshell, all they've got is the infamous, and fallacious statement "prove God doesn't exist" ...
Except it's even worse for CTE! Because Dr. Dave proved it doesn't work.