Does a touch of outside...

If someone thinks that he has to wear the same socks to win & they continue to win when doing so, one does not make them NOT wear those socks or preach to them that the socks have nothing to do with their performance.

Superstitious? Yes. But is there a need to make them take off those socks? No, none at all & a Good Coach Knows That, but also knows that if the player shows up one day without those sock they do not point it out by asking, 'where's your socks?'

Your analogy is correct in that wearing the same pair of "lucky" socks is exactly akin to and has the same effectiveness as the TOI and the CTE systems. It helps some people, but not because it does anything outside of making them focus more or just giving them confidence and a placebo effect. The socks themselves aren't a help in any way.

Where your analogy breaks down is that by telling the player that his same pair of lucky socks are not improving his performance for any reasons that aren't all in is head is not always going to have a negative affect on his performance. A good portion will realize you are right and will start to concentrate on legitimate things instead of hocus pocus stuff like the same pair of lucky socks and will benefit and improve more because of it.

Where it also breaks down is that sometimes a different type of sock is actually better in and of itself, so sometimes it isn't just that wearing those same pair of lucky socks isn't helping the performance, but that regardless of what the athlete believes in his head those same pair of lucky socks are actually hindering his performance.

And where your analogy really breaks down even further is that even if telling people to stop wearing their same pair of lucky socks might affect the performance of some of the people that were already doing it, it still doesn't justify teaching the nonsense of wearing the same pair of lucky socks to the people that haven't picked up that habit yet. Our focus should be on teaching things that will actually legitimately help improve their performance and trying to dissuade them from putting focus into nonsense that is of no real help.

So yes, wearing the same pair of lucky socks helps some people just because they believe in it even though it doesn't really help in any way outside of that, but wouldn't it make a ton more sense to just get them to believe in what actually will legitimately help them instead? And even more so when they haven't even picked up the habit of wearing the same pair of socks yet? That way they still get the benefits that come with simply believing in it, as they would with the socks, PLUS they get the benefit of it actually helping because it actually helps.

The answer course is that this makes not only the most sense, but the only sense, but yet you want to continue trying to teach everyone the "wearing the same pair of socks" method instead of the methods that actually have benefits outside of what you get just by believing it it.
 
Colonel,

Knuckle ball pitchers KNOW how to throw one, while a book worm can tell them that they are doing it wrong.:wink:

Thanks for the Red Rep for this post, BANKS.

I was using inside english when I was 13 & that was nearly 50 years ago. You just show how very little you know about what is really going on.

Athletes do, while book worms talk & think & tell athletes how little they know. Well, some athletes have high IQs & did very very well in school.

Some book worms were also very good athletes, but they did not go around telling better athletes that they were doing things wrong.

No, instead they studied the athletes to see if they could learn something that might not yet be in the books.

Thanks Again for the Red Rep for THIS post.
 
Actually in today's world it is the book worm that tell athletes what they are doing wrong and how they can do it better. Pretty much in every sport. Is all science, physics and computers now. Don't discount book worms.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for the Red Rep for this post, BANKS.

I was using inside english when I was 13 & that was nearly 50 years ago. You just show how very little you know about what is really going on.

Athletes do, while book worms talk & think & tell athletes how little they know. Well, some athletes have high IQs & did very very well in school.

Some book worms were also very good athletes, but they did not go around telling better athletes that they were doing things wrong.

No, instead they studied the athletes to see if they could learn something that might not yet be in the books.

Thanks Again for the Red Rep for THIS post.

Rick,

Don't waste your time.......
 
Colon,

What do you think about post # 26?
It's Colin,
I'm not a large intestine, though gratefully still have one.

There may be something in the methodology ps%$6#%#whatever posted but it was so muddied with ad hominem irrelevant attacks I couldn't slog through it without damaging my already confused mind.

I suspect it wasn't worth my time, but who knows, he may be a genius with communication issues. :-)

Colin
 
It's Colin,
I'm not a large intestine, though gratefully still have one.

There may be something in the methodology ps%$6#%#whatever posted but it was so muddied with ad hominem irrelevant attacks I couldn't slog through it without damaging my already confused mind.

I suspect it wasn't worth my time, but who knows, he may be a genius with communication issues. :-)

Colin

Colin,

What about post #79# from the same guy with "communication issues" ?????

It's nonsense, right ???
 
Colin,

What about post #79# from the same guy with "communication issues" ?????

It's nonsense, right ???
I haven't followed this thread closely, having been absorbed with the WCOP commentary. So allow me some margin if I don't get all points of view.

Here's the post you referred to:
"CIT" is an issue only for players who play a "dead" cue ball.

For the players who play an "alive" cue ball, there is no such thing. They bring the cue ball to life with proper stroking technique. And after contact with the object ball, the ob is also "alive" and goes where it should go.

So, stop doing stupid things like cleaning the pool balls every two shots, or spitting on the pool balls to make experiments with cb-ob contact.

Learn how to stroke the f....ing cue ball to make it play like it's alive.

Ok, I know..... You like playing dead..... So keep going straight to ccb and keep that "pendulum" stroke as straight as possible !!!!!!!!!!!

Omg, there is no hope for this wonderful game.......

Not sure who you were talking to or the comments to which you referred.

I've made the comment recently that CIT and SIT are basically an abstraction from a continuum. Almost all shots have a component of both, which is just a part the the CB rubbing across a part of the OB with a net spin differential, which leads to some amount of throw, wider or thinner, or perhaps none.

That doesn't mean planted dead balls can't teach us things. I'm guessing that's what you mean by dead balls. A sliding no english CB hitting the OB acts the same as a planted ball.

Anyway, maybe I don't get your point, but happy to respond to specific questions regarding throw. I'd be happy if you revealed something I don't understand about it.

Cheers,
Colin
 
Last edited:
I haven't followed this thread closely, having been absorbed with the WCOP commentary. So allow me some margin if I don't get all points of view.

Here's the post you referred to:


Not sure who you were talking to or the comments to which you referred.

I've made the comment recently that CIT and SIT are basically an abstraction from a continuum. Almost all shots have a component of both, which is just a part the the CB rubbing across a part of the OB with a net spin differential, which leads to some amount of throw, wider or thinner, or perhaps none.

That doesn't mean planted dead balls can't teach us things. I'm guessing that's what you mean by dead balls. A sliding no english CB hitting the OB acts the same as a planted ball.

Anyway, maybe I don't get your point, but happy to respond to specific questions regarding throw. I'd be happy if you revealed something I don't understand about it.

Cheers,
Colin

Thank you for your response,

Panagiotis
 
Your analogy is correct in that wearing the same pair of "lucky" socks is exactly akin to and has the same effectiveness as the TOI and the CTE systems. It helps some people, but not because it does anything outside of making them focus more or just giving them confidence and a placebo effect. The socks themselves aren't a help in any way.

Where your analogy breaks down is that by telling the player that his same pair of lucky socks are not improving his performance for any reasons that aren't all in is head is not always going to have a negative affect on his performance. A good portion will realize you are right and will start to concentrate on legitimate things instead of hocus pocus stuff like the same pair of lucky socks and will benefit and improve more because of it.

Where it also breaks down is that sometimes a different type of sock is actually better in and of itself, so sometimes it isn't just that wearing those same pair of lucky socks isn't helping the performance, but that regardless of what the athlete believes in his head those same pair of lucky socks are actually hindering his performance.

And where your analogy really breaks down even further is that even if telling people to stop wearing their same pair of lucky socks might affect the performance of some of the people that were already doing it, it still doesn't justify teaching the nonsense of wearing the same pair of lucky socks to the people that haven't picked up that habit yet. Our focus should be on teaching things that will actually legitimately help improve their performance and trying to dissuade them from putting focus into nonsense that is of no real help.

So yes, wearing the same pair of lucky socks helps some people just because they believe in it even though it doesn't really help in any way outside of that, but wouldn't it make a ton more sense to just get them to believe in what actually will legitimately help them instead? And even more so when they haven't even picked up the habit of wearing the same pair of socks yet? That way they still get the benefits that come with simply believing in it, as they would with the socks, PLUS they get the benefit of it actually helping because it actually helps.

The answer course is that this makes not only the most sense, but the only sense, but yet you want to continue trying to teach everyone the "wearing the same pair of socks" method instead of the methods that actually have benefits outside of what you get just by believing it it.

Would you mind if I sent you a PRIVATE message or would you rather that I just ignore your post & not reply at all?
 
Last edited:
Actually in today's world it is the book worm that tell athletes what they are doing wrong and how they can do it better. Pretty much in every sport. Is all science, physics and computers now. Don't discount book worms.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You are somewhat correct, but knowledge alone does not make an athlete. Tiger woods is a good example of TOO much intellectual analysis possibly ruining his effort to catch &/or pass Jack Nicklaus.

Some will say that injury will be to blame but the injuries started for reasons of intellectual consideration of what improvement MIGHT be had by bulking up, etc. That works for some but not others as we are all certainly not the same. We are individuals & that weight training, etc. can be a slippery slope. One that Tiger seems to have slipped down.

What helped Jack Nicklaus was his decision to play a method that is much like the TOI method of play that CJ introduced here.

I certainly do not mean to discount 'book worms'. I was a bit of one myself, but I was also a bit athletic.

It is the happy marriage that can be a good thing.

Please don't believe what others say about what I think, feel, intend, or am trying to do? They make incorrect assumptions or intentionally misrepresent for there own reasons.
 
It's Colin,
I'm not a large intestine, though gratefully still have one.

There may be something in the methodology ps%$6#%#whatever posted but it was so muddied with ad hominem irrelevant attacks I couldn't slog through it without damaging my already confused mind.

I suspect it wasn't worth my time, but who knows, he may be a genius with communication issues. :-)

Colin

Sorry, Colin.

I was in college prep in H.S. taking Calculus, Physics, etc. & never took typing.

In fact I transform the r & o whenever I want to type 'from' & have to go back & fix it.

I think Panos is on to something but it does seem to be a bit complicated.

Sorry for the typo but the o IS right next to the i.

Cheers.
 
Thanks for the Red Rep for this post, BANKS.

I was using inside english when I was 13 & that was nearly 50 years ago. You just show how very little you know about what is really going on.

Athletes do, while book worms talk & think & tell athletes how little they know. Well, some athletes have high IQs & did very very well in school.

Some book worms were also very good athletes, but they did not go around telling better athletes that they were doing things wrong.

No, instead they studied the athletes to see if they could learn something that might not yet be in the books.

Thanks Again for the Red Rep for THIS post.

I'll explain real quick..

It took you 50 years to learn some of what inside can do, but have tried to beat people into a coma with the claim that you've been playing for 46+ years since you got here. Now you're continuing the same trend.

Some athletes were decent students, but they didn't go around telling the science guy why the football arcs or the boomerang returns.

Now, I play pool, so I've got to pack up my apa cue and head on out. I'll be at our regional event in a couple of weeks if you want to come and take all of my money.
 
After a year of working with the CTE method of aiming, I see where Stan Shuffet's statement about throw is correct.
The method of CTE aiming AUTOMATICALLY takes care of any throw problems.
The system itself does the work.
 
After a year of working with the CTE method of aiming, I see where Stan Shuffet's statement about throw is correct.
The method of CTE aiming AUTOMATICALLY takes care of any throw problems.
The system itself does the work.
First TOI/golf and now CTE/throw? Can we keep the aiming system idiocy quarantined in the aiming forum?

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
First TOI/golf and now CTE/throw? Can we keep the aiming system idiocy quarantined in the aiming forum?

pj
chgo

0ea5f81bdf7ba05b1c4d28afebf5ac25.jpg
 
That's some funny sh!t right there, I don't care who you are.

Jack played whatever the shot called for (fade, draw, straight, high, knock-down), much like great pool players use whatever english is needed for a given shot.

His way of fading or drawing the ball was very simple...........close or open the club face slightly and use the same swing for every club in the bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZbvM9whMxM

Although Jack certainly could do everything, he was a fade player. It was his signature shot, and as long as there were no obstructions, he would hit a fade.
 
I'll explain real quick..

It took you 50 years to learn some of what inside can do, but have tried to beat people into a coma with the claim that you've been playing for 46+ years since you got here. Now you're continuing the same trend.

Some athletes were decent students, but they didn't go around telling the science guy why the football arcs or the boomerang returns.

Now, I play pool, so I've got to pack up my apa cue and head on out. I'll be at our regional event in a couple of weeks if you want to come and take all of my money.

Welcome back, Banks! Good to see ya here again
 
Back
Top