Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat, no way I can prove it to you, but I assure you it's not subconscious adjustments.

And no way I can demonstrate otherwise - I just don't think it stands to reason. So we'll be arguing about this for the foreseeable future. :wink:

pj <- or maybe we define "adjust" differently
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

When it comes to a system like CTE, the biggest issue isn't that it doesn't work, but that it doesn't work without subconscious adjustments.

It used to bother me when folks would say that I was adjusting, and that's the only reason I was making shots. "How dare they? Who are they to tell me what I'm doing?" Then it dawned on me. How do I know what I'm doing? As much as I'd like to think I can be totally in control of every action I take. I can't. No one can.

Who cares though? Why does it matter if subconscious adjustments are being made (aside from marketing purposes)? The system can still help players become better ball pocketers.

I accept the fact that minor adjustments might be made when using the system, and I would still recommend it to anyone who is struggling with making balls.

As I have said many times IF there are subconscious adjustments, which no one could prove due the fact that they are subconscious, then using a aiming method that someone FORCED the shooter to subconsciously adjust to the dead nuts perfect shot line consistently is still a perfect method.

I mean the goal is to pocket more balls and run out more often. So any method that allows the shooter to post measurable results in this regard should be treated as not only valid but worth trying for anyone serious about improving as a player.

Also, if a method allows a person to FEEL LIKE they are doing repeatable steps that lead to the perfect shot line over and over then isn't that what we want to happen? So let's assume that the player is really doing some sort of micro-adjustments but to his conscious mind he is applying steps as taught and practiced and this routine leads to a higher skill level what's wrong with that?

 

[JB Cases]

And no way I can demonstrate otherwise - I just don't think it stands to reason. So we'll be arguing about this for the foreseeable future. :wink:

pj
chgo

P.S. I think our disagreement might be about the meaning of "adjust".

I know you likely don't care but my study of CTE for example has shown me that the difference between the actual ghost ball shot line and the CTE Line (the initial sighting position for CTE) is less than 1mm at the back of the cue ball. So therefore sighting any shot using the CTE line only puts the player's body into cue ball address position that is extremely close to the actual shot line. A line that is not knowable without drawing an actual line to the exact GB position. To me this is one reason why CTE (coupled with the secondary perception sighting) works so well. IMO the CTE line alone gets the shooter very close and the secondary sighting dials it in precisely.

So therefore, no conscious adjustment by the shooter is needed. Follow the steps and the shot line is accurately found.

 

[ENGLISH!]

John,

The wolfing challenges if accepted would NOT settle anything as to system vs subjective perception.

Your bad strokes with the cue going all over the place were subconscious efforts trying to correct for what the subconscious knew was poor aim or poor alignment.

I understand your pre-match issues, but once into the match you should have been able to implement the system IF it is totally objective as claimed.

I'm not looking for any argument.

But... I would be interested in hearing your explanation of the 5 shot perception video.

By definition, perception is subjective. Perception is not objective.

I refrained from posting earlier in reference to your statement that the 'system' takes one to the EXACT shot line.

The 'War' has been 'dead' for some time but statements like that will certainly bring it back again.

My ONLY issue is the totally objective claim.

I think Beiber/Jon who still likes CTE came to realize that subconscious 'adjustments' are likely.

As I said, I would just be interested on your take regarding the 5 shots perception video.

I'm NOT looking into getting into any argumentative back & forth.

But can you explain how moving off the visual until one sees the proper perception of the shot can in any way be objective & is not subjective.

Thanks in Advance,
Rick

Edit: I've now read your posts that were made while I was typing this post & have an idea that you are so not locked it on it being totally objective but still a very useful method.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You miss when you consciously adjust because you are consciously overruling your subconscious which is what was actually accurately doing the calculations and adjustments and shooting by feel. In fact, a large part of why CTE likely "works" is because it occupies your conscious mind in a structured way and frees up your subconscious to be able to do what it does best which is make the necessary calculations and adjustments by feel without having as much interference from your conscious mind or at least a more structured interference that it can more easily tune out and ignore.

You have been good about being pretty scientific about most things lately but for some reason you throw all that out the window when it comes to CTE. You insist that it must find the correct aim line since you are able to make balls with it and this is flawed logic (and when this logic is used for anything else you realize how flawed it is but your bias prevents you from seeing it in relation to CTE).

Whether you are capable of understanding the proof or not (obviously not and it has proved difficult for most so you don't appear to be in the minority), CTE absolutely positively does not and cannot find the correct aim line. That is not a theory. That is not a there is only a one and a billion chance it could work. That is a it can be and already has been easily proven to be absolutely impossible for the system to find the correct aim line without adjustments you make by feel (which you are obviously doing subconsciously since you don't realize it). It generally gets you in the ball park is about it. It works for people because you make subconscious adjustments by feel and no amount of doubt of that fact will ever change that fact.

And on a side note, the reason people typically struggle with CTE at first ("you have to spend a lot of hours with before it starts working") is because they are now doing things in a way that changes the squirt/throw/swerve etc for shots compared to the way they used to do it and their subconscious hasn't developed the feel for all the changes yet and how to adjust for them.

It is also the reason why there are so many different personal variations of CTE systems that people have and they all work "perfectly" for the guy using it even though they are all different. Because it doesn't really matter what you do, your subconscious will adjust for it before long and your subconscious is what is finding the correct aim line, not the system.

I'm with PJ though. This thread is a poll about if people use an aiming system or not, not for the discussion of CTE. There is a special place reserved for CTE discussion for those who believe it is worth their time to do so and the main forum isn't it. Everyone needs to take all the CTE stuff to the aiming forum.

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

 

[JB Cases]

John,

The wolfing challenges if accepted would NOT settle anything as to system vs subjective perception.

Your bad strokes with the cue going all over the place were subconscious efforts trying to correct for what the subconscious knew was poor aim or poor alignment.

I understand your pre-match issues, but once into the match you should have been able to implement the system IF it is totally objective as claimed.

I'm not looking for any argument.

But... I would be interested in hearing your explanation of the 5 shot perception video.

By definition, perception is subjective. Perception is not objective.

I refrained from posting earlier in reference to your statement that the 'system' takes one to the EXACT shot line.

The 'War' has been 'dead' for some time but statements like that will certainly bring it back again.

My ONLY issue is the totally objective claim.

I think Beiber/Jon who still likes CTE came to realize that subconscious 'adjustments' are likely.

As I said, I would just be interested on your take regarding the 5 shots perception video.

I'm NOT looking into getting into an argumentative back & forth.

But can you explain how moving off the visual until one sees the proper perception of the shot can in any way be objective & is not subjective.

Thanks in Advance,
Rick

Sorry to tell you but you can't understand the emotion I was feeling nor do you have any idea the severity of my inablity to control my stroke at that moment. Let's leave it at that. If you don't want to argue with me about my personal experience playing for $10,000 against an opponent with whom I had a long and contentious relationship and his buddies then don't. Because I promise you that you can't ever understand it unless you have been in the same situation under the same conditions and even then I doubt it.

If you link to a video that you want my opinion of I will be happy to look at it and tell you what I think.

As for the question of objectivity in aiming my position is that CTE allows the shooter to address the balls as objectively as humanly possible. To me this dials the shooter into the shot line extremely accurately. Of course there will always be some subjectivity since we aren't using lasers and are using our eyes to lead our body movements.

But a carpenter with a ton of experience can objectively "measure" a board much better than someone who doesn't have an intimate relationship with inches and feet. The carpenter won't be dead perfect as if he used a ruler but he will certainly be far closer than most amateurs. To me this same thing applies when learning CTE (or any other aiming system requiring the use of ONLY ball to ball perceptions) the more you do it the better you get at it until your objective perception is very accurate. That's my opinion on that aspect. Not sure if I answered your question but I hope I did.

 

[JB Cases]

As for the woofing

That's just fun and a chance to make (or lose) money. Always willing to put my money where my mouth is unless I realize I overloaded my ass and then I will eat humble pie and back away slowly.

 

[Poolplaya9]

As I have said many times IF there are subconscious adjustments, which no one could prove due the fact that they are subconscious...

While directly proving subconscious adjustments in a particular case can be difficult at times as you point out (although proving we all do things subconsciously is very easy), it can be absolutely proven that it cannot work without them which indirectly proves that they are happening just the same.

...then using a aiming method that some[how] FORCED the shooter to subconsciously adjust to the dead nuts perfect shot line consistently is still a perfect method.

Well it definitely doesn't do this for a substantial segment of people, and it is questionable at best whether it does it for anyone. But if it did then yes it would be great for that person assuming it didn't come with other negative trade offs (like additional variables and steps that can lead to more human error) that on net were worse than the gains they got from it.

I mean the goal is to pocket more balls and run out more often. So any method that allows the shooter to post measurable results in this regard should be treated as not only valid but worth trying for anyone serious about improving as a player.

Agreed, as long as you don't mislead them in the process. And this has been the stance of all the "science guys" from day one.

If someone went to their Doctor for cancer treatment, it would be completely wrong and unethical for the Doctor to give them sugar pills and tell them it is actually chemo pills, even though the sugar pills might in fact have a chance for helping that patient. The patient deserves honesty about what the pill actually is and how it might or might not be able to help them and how, so that they can make an educated decision for themselves based on truthful information about whether or not they want to invest the time and/or money in it to give it a try. The same goes with CTE or anything else.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Sam Lambert is in need of some guidance right now.

Can anyone tell him how to use the ignore function? It is his only hope.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Sorry to tell you but you can't understand the emotion I was feeling nor do you have any idea the severity of my inablity to control my stroke at that moment. Let's leave it at that. If you don't want to argue with me about my personal experience playing for $10,000 against an opponent with whom I had a long and contentious relationship and his buddies then don't. Because I promise you that you can't ever understand it unless you have been in the same situation under the same conditions and even then I doubt it.

If you link to a video that you want my opinion of I will be happy to look at it and tell you what I think.

As for the question of objectivity in aiming my position is that CTE allows the shooter to address the balls as objectively as humanly possible. To me this dials the shooter into the shot line extremely accurately. Of course there will always be some subjectivity since we aren't using lasers and are using our eyes to lead our body movements.

But a carpenter with a ton of experience can objectively "measure" a board much better than someone who doesn't have an intimate relationship with inches and feet. The carpenter won't be dead perfect as if he used a ruler but he will certainly be far closer than most amateurs. To me this same thing applies when learning CTE (or any other aiming system requiring the use of ONLY ball to ball perceptions) the more you do it the better you get at it until your objective perception is very accurate. That's my opinion on that aspect. Not sure if I answered your question but I hope I did.

I would think you know what 5 shot perception video I mean.

You're using the word objective in a totally different manner than when it is used in the same context as subjective.

No offense intended but I see that as skirting the issue.

Let's just drop it.

Best Wishes.

 

[skins]

CTE may be great BUT it does nothing for getting position on the next ball and those thereafter. You have to know the correct path, cue ball speed, and MOST OF ALL if English is used(I use it on almost every shot), you must know the amount of deflection and swerve your cue creates at specific stroke speeds and shot lengths. LD shafts may decrease that amount but it doesn't matter as long as you learn how your cue plays...

So all that said, I play by my 35+ years of experience so I guess I play more by an experienced feel....

 

[ENGLISH!]

While directly proving subconscious adjustments in a particular case can be difficult at times as you point out (although proving we all do things subconsciously is very easy), it can be absolutely proven that it cannot work without them which indirectly proves that they are happening just the same.


Well it definitely doesn't do this for a substantial segment of people, and it is questionable at best whether it does it for anyone. But if it did then yes it would be great for that person assuming it didn't come with other negative trade offs (like additional variables and steps that can lead to more human error) that on net were worse than the gains they got from it.


Agreed, as long as you don't mislead them in the process. And this has been the stance of all the "science guys" from day one.

If someone went to their Doctor for cancer treatment, it would be completely wrong and unethical for the Doctor to give them sugar pills and tell them it is actually chemo pills, even though the sugar pills might in fact have a chance for helping that patient. The patient deserves honesty about what the pill actually is and how it might or might not be able to help them and how, so that they can make an educated decision for themselves based on truthful information about whether or not they want to invest the time and/or money in it to give it a try. The same goes with CTE or anything else.

:thumbup2:................

 

[JB Cases]

CTE may be great BUT it does nothing for getting position on the next ball and those thereafter. You have to know the correct path, cue ball speed, and MOST OF ALL if English is used(I use it on almost every shot), you must know the amount of deflection and swerve your cue creates at specific stroke speeds and shot lengths. LD shafts may decrease that amount but it doesn't matter as long as you learn how your cue plays...

So all that said, I play by my 35+ years of experience so I guess I play more by an experienced feel....

I disagree. It is my experience that when you know the 100% correct shot line, i.e. you are 100% confident in that line then you are also 100% confident in the tangent line and thus end up with way better cue ball control since you can confidently send the cue ball along that line or adjust with speed, top, bottom or sidespin as needed.

It is my opinion that a lot of players miss because of "trying" to get position when they are not sure or simply don't actually have the right shot line to start with. I believe that this is the cause of body english attempting to force the cueball position. When a proper aiming method that is accurate is used then the shooter can relax and focus on a good delivery and the right speed. For me for example having the right shot line given by CTE has allowed me to shoot at much lower speeds with confidence and put my cue ball into tight spaces for precise position.

It's made a world of difference in my position play.

I wanted to add as well something is a GREAT tool that I use in conjunction with CTE is Dr. Dave's 45 degree tangent to the rail rule for bringing the cue ball through center table (or adjusting as needed to avoid center table). CTE gives me the dead nuts perfect shot line and I then can focus on sending the CB to the 45 degree spot to move around the table without fear of scratching. You can look it up on Dr. Dave's site as part of the VEPS series.

 

[JB Cases]

While directly proving subconscious adjustments in a particular case can be difficult at times as you point out (although proving we all do things subconsciously is very easy), it can be absolutely proven that it cannot work without them which indirectly proves that they are happening just the same.

Please give an example of how to prove that CTE for example cannot work without subsconcious adjustments.

Well it definitely doesn't do this for a substantial segment of people, and it is questionable at best whether it does it for anyone. But if it did then yes it would be great for that person assuming it didn't come with other negative trade offs (like additional variables and steps that can lead to more human error) that on net were worse than the gains they got from it.

Fully disagree. Unless you know how to teach CTE and thus have data on numbers of people who have tried it under qualified guidance you can't use terms like doesn't work for "substantial" amounts of people. In my experience every single person I have introduced to CTE has seen benefit to their game from it even if they didn't go on to master it.

Agreed, as long as you don't mislead them in the process. And this has been the stance of all the "science guys" from day one.

If someone went to their Doctor for cancer treatment, it would be completely wrong and unethical for the Doctor to give them sugar pills and tell them it is actually chemo pills, even though the sugar pills might in fact have a chance for helping that patient. The patient deserves honesty about what the pill actually is and how it might or might not be able to help them and how, so that they can make an educated decision for themselves based on truthful information about whether or not they want to invest the time and/or money in it to give it a try. The same goes with CTE or anything else.

Agreed but no person teaching CTE has ever misled anyone. The worst that they could be accused of is being over-exuberant about what they have to share. Unlike your example trying a new method in pool doesn't endanger anyone. The absolute worst that could happen is that someone gets worse for a while as they are learning a new technique. This is common to all sports. It is highly highly unlikely that a person introduced to CTE would ever become a permanently worse player than they were prior to the introduction. So let's not equate any statements made about CTE or any credible aiming method with deliberate fraud and endangerment.

At the end of the day it is simply players trying to help other players get better. An incredibly noble thing to do in my opinion. People often say in the old days no one would show you anything. While that was probably true to an extent I think people did share or we really would have never improved at all. But now people are very willing to help others and share methods and that should ALWAYS be applauded and never knocked IMO. Even if the method is bunk, encourage others to try it and find out for themselves instead of telling them it's bunk. Part of the teach a man to fish instead of giving him a fish....

 

[skins]

I disagree. It is my experience that when you know the 100% correct shot line, i.e. you are 100% confident in that line then you are also 100% confident in the tangent line and thus end up with way better cue ball control since you can confidently send the cue ball along that line or adjust with speed, top, bottom or sidespin as needed.

It is my opinion that a lot of players miss because of "trying" to get position when they are not sure or simply don't actually have the right shot line to start with. I believe that this is the cause of body english attempting to force the cueball position. When a proper aiming method that is accurate is used then the shooter can relax and focus on a good delivery and the right speed. For me for example having the right shot line given by CTE has allowed me to shoot at much lower speeds with confidence and put my cue ball into tight spaces for precise position.

It's made a world of difference in my position play.

I wanted to add as well something is a GREAT tool that I use in conjunction with CTE is Dr. Dave's 45 degree tangent to the rail rule for bringing the cue ball through center table (or adjusting as needed to avoid center table). CTE gives me the dead nuts perfect shot line and I then can focus on sending the CB to the 45 degree spot to move around the table without fear of scratching. You can look it up on Dr. Dave's site as part of the VEPS series.

Shot line and tangent line mean nothing if you can't get the cue ball to hit that exact spot on the object ball... To get to that spot you HAVE to know how your shaft plays within a given force while using english. Also adjustment for throw has to be considered as well...

John, next time you're in the Chicagoland area I'll take ya out to hit some...

 

[Poolplaya9]

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

Holy crap you agreed with me on something?!

:thumbup2:................

And again?! Are you feeling ok sir? I can call an ambulance for you if you think you might have had a mini stroke or something. (<---intended as good natured ribbing since I know that without the voice inflection it could be misconstrued)

Seriously though, I have a lot of respect for when someone can have a contentious debate and vehement disagreement with someone one moment, and then turn around the next moment and be able to give them credit where you felt it was due. Kudos to you for that sir (and a greenie). That isn't an easy thing for most people to be able to do, but it is a great thing. Hats off. :thumbup2:

 

[JB Cases]

Sam Lambert is in need of some guidance right now.

Can anyone tell him how to use the ignore function? It is his only hope.

Here you go Sam,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HYQjoHjwL4

If you can figure out how to play like either one of these players you will be very happy with your game and ready for the pros. Landon uses CTE ProOne as his aiming method.

Strickland uses the billion ball method of straight up experience. If he uses any sort of aiming method he has not divulged what it is.

 

[JB Cases]

Shot line and tangent line mean nothing if you can't get the cue ball to hit that exact spot on the object ball... To get to that spot you HAVE to know how your shaft plays within a given force while using english. Also adjustment for throw has to be considered as well...

John, next time you're in the Chicagoland area I'll take ya out to hit some...

Would love to.

I think these things are best discussed on the table anyway.

Assuming you do know how your shaft plays, which I do, then shot line and the subsequent tangent line mean everything. As for spin, well that is of course more subjective but in my experience with CTE starting with the centerball perfect shot line i find it fairly easy to use backhand english for most shots to easily get the spin I need without sacrificing shot accuracy.

One of the worst things I hear in the pool room that makes me cringe is when someone misses but gets position and they say "at least I got shape". No, you didn't get shape because if you had aimed down the right shot line then you likely wouldn't have gotten shape since you wouldn't have been sure it was the right line. So you chose to "get shape" instead of making the ball.

 

[ENGLISH!]

...In my experience every single person I have introduced to CTE has seen benefit to their game from it even if they didn't go on to master it....

John,

You sort of introduced me to it through your You tube videos & proclamations here & I found no real use for it other than the shots that fit the visuals & that was not enough to entice me to continue with it as I saw the holes that needed to be filled in by adjustment which was & would be subjective.

I was led to believe that it was a totally objective method until I rather quickly came to my senses & said to myself, 'Self, you should have known better, what in the hell were you thinking, or rather why did you stop thinking.'.

I'm not saying it can't be the bee's knees for you or anyone else but it is NOT a totally objective method much less system.

Best,
Rick

 

[JB Cases]

I would think you know what 5 shot perception video I mean.

You're using the word objective in a totally different manner than when it is used in the same context as subjective.

No offense intended but I see that as skirting the issue.

Let's just drop it.

Best Wishes.

No need to drop it. We are just talking. Feel free to explain the context and I will attempt to use that context if I agree with your definition.

Is there a problem with finding the video you reference and linking to it? I have seen a lot of videos and whenever I want someone to see or comment on a video I will go find it since I know exactly what I am thinking of and paste the link in the discussion as a courtesy to the other folks in the discussion.

Forgive me if I don't always follow your reasoning. I think you ought to know me well enough by now to know I don't deliberately skirt any issue. Sometimes I need some more clarity on what the point is though.