That is your 2d rule.......like it or not....it does not apply to the visuals in pool at a table.
All in the world that you can cling to is your 2d....draw on paper stuff. It has no application at the table.
Stan Shuffett
Fear of Feel
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
That is your 2d rule.......like it or not....it does not apply to the visuals in pool at a table.
All in the world that you can cling to is your 2d....draw on paper stuff. It has no application at the table.
Stan Shuffett
Earlier, you put Earl S. in the holistic camp. Don't really see how you can do that with a guy that analyzes so much that he actually wears weights to play. Not to mention building up the size of the butt, lengthening the cue, wearing colored glasses, ect. ect.
Yea that's what i thought, PJ wont know them either.
Pat, that you think that pivoting over complicates aiming only shows just how little you do actually know about it. Once learned, it simplifies aiming.
And you still doubt that CTE is from another dimension? :wink: (computer won't self-destruct, but might work better for you)
Congratulations Pat, you just nailed yourself. CTE- 1/4 ball, center ball, 3/4 ball, 1/2 tip from center, 1/8 ball, edge of ball. Everyone on here knows those spots on the balls.
The only thing left is for you to state that one can't find 1/4 reliably. Don't think you really want to go down that route.
edit- reading farther, I see you actually went down that route! Amazing, what's next Pat? One must be able to accurately count the atoms to really find center cb, or it is all just feel?
If your minutae nitpicking really had any substance to it, then you should easily be able to explain this- Why, when learning a pivot based aiming system, and one follows the steps to the letter, and the shot looks all wrong to the person, yet, being practice they shoot it anyways to see what happens, does the ball go in the pocket? Why, when ones "feel" is screaming NO, does the system work if one is actually using feel in it?
Last edited:
Because he doesn't do it systematically. He tries stuff, and then abandons it and tries something else. How on earth is that being reductionist?
Now, if he put 2.35 ounces of lead foil exactly 4.85" from the cue butt, wrapped it up with tennis wrap (alway the same amount so as to change only one parameter at a time), then used an accelerometer to measure the difference in cue velocity and CB trajectory vs. the before-foil data......
Capriciously trying new stuff doesn't put you at all in the reductionist camp, it puts you very decidedly at the other end of the spectrum. I try crazy shit out all the time. I learn something new every day by doing this, but it is hardly a systematic approach. Sure is a blast, though.
Well, I'm starting to be convinced. Shortly after I posted that, I swallowed wrong and coughed up coffee all over the monitor, and the disc that was still hanging out of the drive. I got a clean rag, wiped off the disc and carefully put it back in its box.
I have a newfound respect now, both for Stan and CTE Pro One. It seems to be some powerful voodoo, and I ain't messing with it again for quite a while.
Because he doesn't do it systematically. He tries stuff, and then abandons it and tries something else. How on earth is that being reductionist?
Now, if he put 2.35 ounces of lead foil exactly 4.85" from the cue butt, wrapped it up with tennis wrap (alway the same amount so as to change only one parameter at a time), then used an accelerometer to measure the difference in cue velocity and CB trajectory vs. the before-foil data......
Capriciously trying new stuff doesn't put you at all in the reductionist camp, it puts you very decidedly at the other end of the spectrum. I try crazy shit out all the time. I learn something new every day by doing this, but it is hardly a systematic approach. Sure is a blast, though.
Actually, from what I have read, Earl does do some of those things. And, just for the record, I don't use an accelerometer.:grin:
Thanks Neil, but I can name the fractions already. Funny thing is, naming them doesn't tell me how to recognize "the visual".
Any time you want to get to that, I'm still (after all these years) listening...
pj <- do I hear tapdancing music?
chgo
Recenty, you clearly stated in one of your threads that the CTE visuals were the same as the quarter system visuals.
That shows your lack of understanding for CTE at its most basic level. Yet, you continue to act as if you know the details of CTE.
I offered you 20/1 and 40/1 bets concerning statements you recently made right here on AZ......apparently, you do not have enough belief in what you say to back it up.
Stan Shuffett
Earl is a flake. One day the ass weights, the next a diving helmet, then a javelin for a cue, the elimination of side pockets, 10' tables, finger extensions and so forth. Actually, he's a very inventive guy, but there is no real rhyme or reason to what he does IMO. He just does not fit the description of a reductionist thinker in the slightest. But if it makes you happy, I'll slide his bead over to the other side.
But the real question is, why aren't you using an accelerometer? Word is even CJ will be having them installed inside all of his cues. Well... maybe just a touch inside them.
Nice one!
Ha! Nice One!
Earl is a flake. One day the ass weights, the next a diving helmet, then a javelin for a cue, the elimination of side pockets, 10' tables, finger extensions and so forth. Actually, he's a very inventive guy, but there is no real rhyme or reason to what he does IMO. He just does not fit the description of a reductionist thinker in the slightest. But if it makes you happy, I'll slide his bead over to the other side.
But the real question is, why aren't you using an accelerometer? Word is even CJ will be having them installed inside all of his cues. Well... maybe just a touch inside them.
Ha! Nice One!
Well, I'm starting to be convinced. Shortly after I posted that, I swallowed wrong and coughed up coffee all over the monitor, and the disc that was still hanging out of the drive. I got a clean rag, wiped off the disc and carefully put it back in its box.
I have a newfound respect now, both for Stan and CTE Pro One. It seems to be some powerful voodoo, and I ain't messing with it again for quite a while.
It's just part of the process- you have to "empty your cup" to learn a new way.
No need to be scared of it yet. Now, if you find it back in there tomorrow.......
No, Stan, that's what you keep saying I said. I understand that (CTE's version of) the common fractions are not the final aiming visual itself, but are the landmarks used to "acquire" it.
This is just the usual way of avoiding the same old question: how is the final aiming visual "acquired" - since it's "objective", please tell us how the player recognizes it when he sees it?
pj <- a duet; how nice
chgo
Earl is a flake. One day the ass weights, the next a diving helmet, then a javelin for a cue, the elimination of side pockets, 10' tables, finger extensions and so forth. Actually, he's a very inventive guy, but there is no real rhyme or reason to what he does IMO. He just does not fit the description of a reductionist thinker in the slightest. But if it makes you happy, I'll slide his bead over to the other side.
But the real question is, why aren't you using an accelerometer? Word is even CJ will be having them installed inside all of his cues. Well... maybe just a touch inside them.
When one does the things that are required for acceleration, one doesn't need the gadgets to prove it.
That doesn't mean I won't occasionaly link to a chart that makes a point for me though.Pat, you keep asking for "the final aiming visual". Apparently, you understand so little about CTE, that you don't even understand that the question makes no sense. You keep asking for an answer to a nonsensical question.
I agree with that, Neil. Since there's only one sensible answer, there really is no question.You keep asking for an answer to a nonsensical question.
pj
chgo