All methods use "controlled guessing", even your favorite one. Some just know it more clearly than others and tackle the issue directly.
Arguing which is "better" is your pointless obsession, not mine.
pj
chgo
AIMING BY FULL BALL - A Fractional Technique
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
Arguing which is "better" is your pointless obsession, not mine.
pj
chgo
But that cant be true i read on the internet that can you can hit any shot on the table with 3 contact points each side of center. I read it on the internet so i know its true. It even works for those shots where half the pocket is blocked.
You constantly skip over the important parts.
So I will repeat it for you.
With some methods the guessing is reduced to the point that it's essentially automatic. Because the system is systematic the shooter comes to the shot line precisely using a couple steps that are repeatable.
These methods allow the shooter to get to the shot line for ANY shot at any time. Not just AFTER one has been on the table guessing until the shot line is found.
That's a major distinction Pat. And because the system works the shooter can get to that shot line with confidence that their choice is correct. The proof is in the experience of those who have mastered the methods.
Anyone who has will easily beat anyone in a shot making contest with similar time in the game who uses your method to learn shots.
Which is why you and your buddies will never bet against it.
With all methods, John. This false distinction is just more blind allegiance to "your system" (and minimal understanding of how aiming happens).
pj
chgo
Not true Pat.
For one thing your method does not work satisfactorily in a game situation. Nor is it really satisfactory in practice sessions.
There IS a scale to how much one needs to guess and your way would high on the NEED to guess end of it whereas what I use is very low on the need to guess scale.
In fact it's so low that it feels like not guessing at all. Pretty much point and shoot. No need to reduce by halves or estimate distances. No estimating (guessing) at all.
Point and shoot.
"Feels like" are the operative words here - every method "feels like" that once you're good at it.
As I've pointed out many times, John, you're deluded about how "what you use" works. No aiming system eliminates feel or even comes close. You "feel like" CTE does and you've been told it does by those who sell it, and maybe it's something you need to believe - but it's a wishful fantasy. This is really common sensical - it's surprising how little you know about this topic given how much time you spend obsessing over it.
pj
chgo
No Pat.
I play pool. And I gamble at pool. I know what I can and can't do.
I haven't been sold anything by anyone. The whole concept of "selling" these methods was invented by you and your buddies.
When I speak about them I speak from a position of experience ON THE TABLE. Not a religious experience where only I can "feel" it. But an objective shot making experience on the pool table where results are measured in getting the cash. Results are immediate as in did you make the shot or not.
Whatever I know about the aiming methods I use was EARNED by my work on the table, not because someone told me it works. I know it works because I use it every time I play.
This is like me describing a tool and how well it works after using it daily for years and you who have NEVER used the tool wants to tell me what it can and can't do and whether it's actually precise or not.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you were a physicist then you could probably tell me things about WHY the tool works the way it does that I don't know and don't really need to know. But as a fellow carpenter you can't possibly tell me how my hammer works if you have never tried my hammer.
Again, feel (guessing) is a scale Pat. Like it or not that's what it is. The more experience you have the less pure feel is part of the process. The more knowledge you have the less guessing there is. An accurate aiming method gives the shooter the knowledge to use a systematic approach to get to the shot line. Very little to NO guessing involved. Effectively, no feel to get to the shot line.
Now you are going to say again that I am wrong. But the difference between you and I is that I can fidget my way to the shot line JUST LIKE YOU DO, but you can't get to the shot the way I do it. In other words to make it even easier for you to understand, I have all the tools in my box and you don't.
I encourage others to try out any and all methods to aim and you discourage them. You do it with the knock. By continuing to assert that all methods use feel and NOT acknowledging that there is a wide gap in the amount of feel used, from very very little to pure guessing, you are telling everyone that all methods are created equal and that is not the case.
But then you have to say that given your prejudice. You have so many years invested in your position that you cannot abide the thought of trying the methods and possibly being wrong.
I, on the other hand, would change my conviction in a heartbeat if you or any of your buddies would show me just where I am wrong. All you have to do is learn the methods and do a video showing where the same amount of feel and guessing to get to the shot line is in comparison to whatever other method you espouse is.
Why you and your buddies are so scared of video is hard to understand. But since you contend that you are right how about proving it?
Gosh, that spiel sure sounds awfully familiar..Where have I heard that line of reasoning before ?..
Last edited:
Dave, I think if you would start your "smidgen" adjustment method with a half-ball aim rather than a full-ball aim, you'd have something.
The adjustments would never amount to more than a half ball. And I wouldn't worry about making the adjustments after you're down on the table. After all, we do that for manual pivot-based methods and we do it for back-hand english.
Not that I'll be switching to "half-ball plus smidgens," but I just tried it briefly, and it didn't seem to affect my proficiency one way or the other!:smile:
Edit: for close to straight-ins and close to maximum cut angles, I'd just align initially for straight in or edge to edge. The half-ball plus smidgens would be for all others.
Last edited:
This is like I asked you to prove you don't know what you're talking about and you complied. Thanks.
As you've been told many, many times before, videos can't prove anything about how you're making shots - only that you are. Mind boggling that you don't get this. It's basic common sense.
pj
chgo
Not true. There are a few that come VERY VERY VERY close to eliminating "feel" when feel is used as you mean it.
When something is so insignificant as to not be noticeable in the performance of a task then for all practical purposes it's eliminated.
That's what a good aiming method does for you. Snick snack 1-2-3 you're on the shot line.
Now execute. And there are systems for that too.
Well Pat,
I have a basic trust that you wouldn't lie to us. So if you did a video and you said - "here, right here is where in this method that feel must be used to move to the next step" then we would have a point of discussion.
Do you think I am lying when I do the videos Pat? Maybe secretly using GB and saying I use some other method?
Here, point out where I am using feel to line up these shots. How many times do you think I practiced these before I did the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb9e6NuNteE
Once. The answer is one time I ran through it and then I did the video.
People do "how to" videos all the time Pat. Are they all lying about the body motions they are describing themselves doing? Is the whole planet deluded when they try to describe what the physical motions are that they go through when performing a task?
No, John. As I've also said to you many times, I think you don't know how aiming happens and you don't know what videos can and cannot show about it. And you clearly don't know that you don't know those things.
pj
chgo
No, then it's unnoticeable (and not necessarily insignificant).
You can decide that words mean anything you want for yourself, John, but not for the rest of us.
pj
chgo
You obviously have never done anything worthwhile with your hands. If you had then you would understand what practical is.
Not that it matters, but I've probably done more (professionally and otherwise) with my hands than you have, including professional leatherwork. You have a talent for getting your neck stuck out in topics you know nothing about.
And whatever you think practical means, CTE still doesn't require any less feel than any other way of aiming. That's a topic you really don't understand.
pj
chgo
It matters because I don't believe that you have. I doubt you have done "professional" leather work. If you had then you would understand the difference between theory and practice. When I think about how to join leather pieces I have a theory about what will work. When I put those ideas to the test I find out exactly whether they work or not and adjust from there. In any case like everything else you talk about we will see no actual proof from you.
And yes the aiming method I use among others requires significantly less feel than some other methods.....to the point where the motions to get to the shot line are nearly automatic.
No amount of you saying otherwise will make it so. You could do a video where you show otherwise if you could prove it but you can't so you won't. You aren't even willing to try. It's very convenient for you to claim that no one can prove a concept like aiming by demonstrating it on video. That is your blanket out isn't it Pat.
Condescension is really all you have. You fidget when you aim and you expect the rest of the world to fidget along with you.
Some of us don't fidget. We get to the shot line easily and automatically.
Sorry that you don't and are dead set against learning how to.
I've said this before, if CTE/ProOne is nothing more then a trick or an aid for the subconscious then it's still the best method to pocket balls by far. After the initial sighting I never have to even look at the OB again, just pivot to ( a new) center and stroke straight down that (shot) line. Like butter
If it's all just an aid then it's pretty strong how many can perform the same procedure and become so dialed in and repeat the method with great success over hundreds of shots.
Wow, you mean you never miss when using cte? Someone told me you have a video of you playing? have a link to it? How could anyone prove they use cte, or any other aiming systems? I would be curious to know the speed of everyone here who claims they use cte?