Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[JB Cases]

I agree, some of us just have it backwards on who doesn't know what they don't know.

But for those that are new to the debates and just don't know which side is likely right or has more credibility to believe in, on one side you have all the people with the genius or super exceptional IQ's, and all the scientists with PhD's in some of the most complicated fields on earth (some of whom are pool instructors) and they all without exception are on the same side and unanimously to a person agree that CTE does not and cannot find the exact aim line although it can provide some help to some people for other reasons, and on the other side you have random pool players (some of whom are also pool instructors) who have no exceptional scientific credentials or IQ's and who say "well geez, but it must be finding the right aim line because I can make balls with it". I will leave it to everyone to make their own decision on who is likely actually right based on those facts even if they don't understand all the science behind CTE themselves. I sure know where my money would be if I didn't fully understand it and how it all worked and all the science behind it.

But again, let everyone who wants to debate CTE feel free to do so to their hearts content, in the aiming forum where it belongs and not in the main forum where we are not supposed to be debating it. Start a thread over there for all the people who are interested in continuing to debate it or read more about it.

Again you are not correct. There are people who are geniuses with advanced degrees who use CTE and know it works.

The important part though is that debating the science or math of a method is not productive. That's like saying fire doesn't work if you don't understand the physics of it.

If you as a player will not learn or practice an aiming method because you think it doesn't make logical sense to you then you have no basis to tell others it doesn't work. All you can say is that you don't understand the science behind it and guess that it can't work.

Which is fine. But to say that people are being seriously misled when so many clearly benefit from these methods is not ethical in my opinion. Doing that is essentially a deliberate campaign to stop people from even considering to try a method that they are interested in.

I don't need to know the physics and chemical properties involved in combustion to create a fire and use fire beneficially. I simply need to know the steps to create a fire. If someone posted the math that governs any aiming system it wouldn't matter one bit to a player whether that math was right or wrong when it comes down to actually using that method to play pool. In other words I could post a formula and claim it's the right math and the math folks could debate it endlessly and none of that debate would help a player pocket a ball.

But I can take a player to the table and show them the way that an aiming system is used to align themselves to the shot and with that they can see immediate benefit. No math required.

 

[iusedtoberich]

But that's the problem. If a player learns CTE inside and out, becomes better, but it was simply the table time and paying more attention that did it, and NOT the CTE (or any other aiming system), then the CTE is a placebo. Even if the player got better, its actually unethical to say it was due to the system. You could set up some sort of experiment to test this.

 

[Neil]

No thanks. The burden of proof is on you. My point is instead of spending 20 years arguing, you could have done some sort of experiment in a couple of months, and have gotten much further. As it is now, there is nothing today that shows CTE works. Its just he said she said. Thats it. It makes no difference if the person saying it works is the best player in the world, or a banger. You don't have anything more than you did 20 years ago.

We don't need anything more. It's you asking for more. We are perfectly happy if no one else ever learns it or any other aiming system.(well, except for the guys that make a few dollars from teaching it) Especially if we have to play them at some point.

The arguments people make against it are just ridiculous at best. "I won't learn it because I found out one word was used incorrectly in my opinion" or "It can't possibly work as stated, so I won't work with it".

All it really boils down to, is people are too lazy to actually do some work to improve themselves. And, it is a lot of work. You have to erase your old way of doing things and ingrain a new way. Along the way you discover that you had a little steering issue going on for years that you weren't aware of, and your subconscious took care of for you, and this new system requires a straight stroke. So, now you have to work some more on getting a straight stroke. It's a lot of work. But, I will say unequivocally that it was well worth the work for me. As has been stated many times, it's not just the aiming itself that helps one, it's other things involved also.

So, as soon as some find out it's not a magical pill that they thought it was, and actually requires work to learn properly, they turn against it, and to make themselves feel better about being lazy, they come up with all kinds of excuses not to use it and why it shouldn't be used. And, the whole time they do that, they are the ones missing out on something great.

 

[JB Cases]

But that's the problem. If a player learns CTE inside and out, becomes better, but it was simply the table time and paying more attention that did it, and NOT the CTE (or any other aiming system), then the CTE is a placebo. Even if the player got better, its actually unethical to say it was due to the system. You could set up some sort of experiment to test this.

Well I can tell you with 100% certainty that this is NOT the case. But for the sake of argument let's say that it IS a placebo, i.e. telling someone to practice a certain set of steps diligently will improve their pocketing and it does would that be bad?

And if those effects never go away, i.e. their skill level remains improved? Pretty damn good placebo if you ask me.

But the whole thing with a placebo IS that the giver KNOWS it is a placebo and they want to study the psychological effects on the subject. It's only unethical if a placebo is SOLD to a person as the genuine item. If part of a clinical trial which is pretty much the only way placebos are administered ethically then there is no issue.

In this case we have several methods of aiming, only one of which gets any major debate on here (for personal reasons in my opinion) which many have testified to the benefit derived. So IF these methods were not physically effective but instead ONLY psychological they have already proven to be beneficial to a lot of users based on first person testimonials.

But these methods are not placebos. They are very real methods with concrete physical steps to them that produce measurable results for the users. It is no coincidence that the highest scoring players on both Colin Colenso's shotmaking test and Dr. Dave's Billiard University tests are system users in my opinion. How any rational person can discount those results is beyond me.

 

[JB Cases]

But that's the problem. If a player learns CTE inside and out, becomes better, but it was simply the table time and paying more attention that did it, and NOT the CTE (or any other aiming system), then the CTE is a placebo. Even if the player got better, its actually unethical to say it was due to the system. You could set up some sort of experiment to test this.

Tell you what. Let's do an experiment.

You take Dr. Dave's test again and I will find someone local in OKC to take it who scores about the same as you.

You have one month to practice as hard as you can.

I will teach my player CTE and let them practice for two weeks and redo the test. If they improve their score lets see if you can improve yours as much or more than theirs with double the practice. I am going to assume that you will NOT be learning any aiming system and all your practice will be feel based. I think you are an honest guy and so I will trust that this is how it will go.

I am not offering to bet anything. Although if you feel like putting something on the outcome I would be ok with it. I will video the sessions with an interview and a witness attesting that the person chosen has never been introduced to CTE in any form prior to taking the BU test.

This is about as scientific as I can get given my time constraints. Are you up for it?

 

[Neil]

But that's the problem. If a player learns CTE inside and out, becomes better, but it was simply the table time and paying more attention that did it, and NOT the CTE (or any other aiming system), then the CTE is a placebo. Even if the player got better, its actually unethical to say it was due to the system. You could set up some sort of experiment to test this.

That sounds reasonable on the surface, but once one thinks about it, it doesn't hold any water. How is one to learn CTE inside and out without table time? (although some on here actually think they have) Also, the table time to learn it is not playing games, but setting up shots and learning what visuals to use to make the shot. And then delivering a straight stroke along the given line.

Does it have side affects that benefit also? Of course it does, for many, one of those will be as you stated- paying closer attention to details. All those things added together will make one a better player.

To state that learning the system and getting better because of it is unethical, well, that's just absurd. The only way you can make your claim is if the student would have learned the exact same things in the same time frame without using the system at all. And, if you really knew the system as taught, you would know that it is learning more than just the visuals for aiming. There are a number of facets to the system.

But, to rail against something for twenty some years that even it's harshest critics claim has good benefits to using it, is some kind of obsession and failure to admit one was wrong to start with. They chose a path to go down, and now feel the need to stay on it. Even though they chose the wrong path.

edit- one more thing about it is that many want it to be a magic pill to jump a level or two. Nothing does that, and CTE does not claim that. It is an aiming system. Not a complete playing package. Aiming is only a portion of playing. However, when one misses less, then yes. They are now playing better.

 

[ENGLISH!]

...I don't get all hung up on the words. I look at the steps and follow the directions and if it works for me to help me become a better player I don't need to know why it works. Although I have searched for why it is ONLY because I am curious how things work not because I need to know in order to reap the benefits. I pocket better, I bank better and as an added bonus I play position better. That's the bottom line.

John,

Thanks for the apology, but it was not just you & I certainly don't blame you as you were merely passing on what you had gathered from another or others.

What you say about an expert & a novice sort of shows what it is to have subjective perceptions. Now take 2 experts in a field even like forensics. Even the 2 experts can have 2 different perceptions based on the same facts before them. That is subjectivity & not objectivity.

I know you don't really care per say, but if the objective claim is taken from CTE then it is of the same subjective nature as other methods although perhaps a better one.

If it is said that 5 different parallel shots can be pocketed into the same corner pocket using the same visual & the same pivot & the only described difference is to 'move until you see the proper perception for the shot', then the fine tuning to the proper perception is 100% subjective.

I & others take exception with the assertion that it is TOTALLY objective in it's nature.

To us that is a falsehood even if someone truly believes it & I think any judge would find it fraudulent advertising IF it were said in any official advertisement or marketing.

To pull individuals in with that false assertion is simply wrong even if one believes the assertion.

I like what you've been saying tonight even if you are still a bit hung up on the objective thing.

If it works & helps anyone to improve then that is all that matters or should matter to that individual, BUT... they should not make false assertions about why it helped them.

Like PJ said, these discussions will go on & on, at least until the totally objective assertion is taken away from it.

All the Best 2 You & Your Family.
Rick

 

[JoeyInCali]

If you vote, you can read the results of the survey so far.

 

[Neil]

To those that want it moved to the aiming forum. Maybe you need to look at why you can't handle talking pool in the main forum. And why you feel the need to read about aiming and posting about it when you can't handle it. You don't need to hide it to avoid it, just don't open the thread.

 

[Neil]

If you vote, you can read the results of the survey so far.

You can read the result without voting. But, it is a closed poll so you can't see who voted for what.

 

[Zphix]

Ommffggg... Just drop the topic. It's pretty clear that neither side is willing to give an inch in the CTE vs. non-CTE debate. I know players who swear by it and shoot lights out (like the Wisconsin CTE instructor); but, he loses to non-CTE players, and beats non-CTE players. I know other players who don't use a formally taught system and still shoot lights out.

I'm convinced that CTE has some merit to it but the degree of merit is yet to be determined. I'll never pick it up or try it out simply because I don't want, because I'm perfectly competent pocketing balls a high percentage of the time with how I shoot now. When I was learning, I stepped up to the table and just did it.

OP, the best advice you'll get is use what works for you. If you can improve rapidly using the ghost ball method then you really don't need CTE or any aiming system. If you can't pocket hangers with a feel or ghostball method then maybe you should look into CTE.

In both cases, for the CTE and non-CTE shooters who are superb players; they all put in the time on the table and that leads me to believe that time spent on the table is the most important.

For people who supposedly love the game, you guys find every excuse you can to argue and disagree with one another. Why can't anybody leave it at "To each his own?"

 

[ENGLISH!]

... It is no coincidence that the highest scoring players on both Colin Colenso's shotmaking test and Dr. Dave's Billiard University tests are system users in my opinion. How any rational person can discount those results is beyond me.

You would need to look at the percentages of the numbers of each type, etc.

A CTEer might have the best... & the worse score.

The bottom end might be heavy with CTEers.

I'm not saying that is the case, but your supposition is lacking in it's analysis & statistics can be made to say almost whatever one want's them to say.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Tell you what. Let's do an experiment.

You take Dr. Dave's test again and I will find someone local in OKC to take it who scores about the same as you.

You have one month to practice as hard as you can.

I will teach my player CTE and let them practice for two weeks and redo the test. If they improve their score lets see if you can improve yours as much or more than theirs with double the practice. I am going to assume that you will NOT be learning any aiming system and all your practice will be feel based. I think you are an honest guy and so I will trust that this is how it will go.

I am not offering to bet anything. Although if you feel like putting something on the outcome I would be ok with it. I will video the sessions with an interview and a witness attesting that the person chosen has never been introduced to CTE in any form prior to taking the BU test.

This is about as scientific as I can get given my time constraints. Are you up for it?

I thought we just a short while ago agreed that this type of one on one would not really answer any of the pertinent questions.

 

[Neil]

You would need to look at the percentages of the numbers of each type, etc.

A CTEer might have the best... & the worse score.

The bottom end might be heavy with CTEers.

I'm not saying that is the case, but your supposition is lacking in it's analysis & statistics can be made to say almost whatever one want's them to say.

So, again, you have no facts at all to make your statement, but yet felt the need to make it just to discredit already known facts. Did you even think about what you wrote?? If the top is heavy with aiming system advocates, and the bottom is also, gee, what does that tell you?

 

[JB Cases]

I thought we just a short while ago agreed that this type of one on one would not really answer any of the pertinent questions.

No we agreed that any given random match doesn't mean anything. What I proposed isn't a random match but instead an experiment where a benchmark is set and then conditions are different for the two participants for a period of time and then those participants then are tested again to see how they compare to the initial benchmark.

Of course with only two participants the results can't really be extrapolated but I don't have the time, energy or money to do any more than this.

I am not even sure what you consider to be pertinent questions anyway. At the moment you seem to be hung up on whether the method is entirely objective or not. I don't know that this experiment would answer that but I am sure that the geniuses referred to earlier in the thread could devise an experiment that would address that aspect.

 

[JB Cases]

You would need to look at the percentages of the numbers of each type, etc.

A CTEer might have the best... & the worse score.

The bottom end might be heavy with CTEers.

I'm not saying that is the case, but your supposition is lacking in it's analysis & statistics can be made to say almost whatever one want's them to say.

Ok the lists are available and the participants could be surveyed. Still the fact is that system users have the highest scores, that's a fact. So you are free to make of that what you want. I choose to interpret it as - damn maybe I should consider whatever method these guys are using and see for myself if there is anything there that can help me get better.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So, again, you have no facts at all to make your statement, but yet felt the need to make it just to discredit already known facts. Did you even think about what you wrote?? If the top is heavy with aiming system advocates, and the bottom is also, gee, what does that tell you?

It tells me that there is a wild separation of ability between aiming system advocates.

Again, you missed the point.

I was only pointing out to John the fallacy of his line of thinking in that regard.

I made the point that what I said was hypothetical & not fact nor suggestion.

You really need to take your blinders off.

 

[JB Cases]

I've been reading/watching a lot of information since I started playing pool. I watched videos, I bought DVDs, I read books and they almost always mention aiming systems.

I tried most of them, maybe I didn't spend enough time using them, but I can't seem to end up liking them more than going by feel. Going by feel seems to work just fine for me and I can only guess it will get even better with time, while I feel aiming systems are a bit unnatural and takes from your concentration.

What do you guys do? Aiming systems or feel? A bit of both?

Sam I reallly like what you're doing with your blog. Since you just started playing you really don't have a good basis to make the judgement on aiming systems. All you are is a feel player at the moment because of your inexperience.

Many of us wish that we had had the knowledge of aiming systems when we started playing. We put in many hours using feel, or even feel based on ghostball to aim.

Yes you can get good on pure feel. And yes "aiming systems" can feel unnatural. This is because all of our lives we are told to essentially point and shoot no matter what the task. So the natural instinct in pool is to do just that. But the problem comes in with the task required in pool. You must put your body into a position so that you can propel one ball precisely into another ball to make it go precisely on another angle. This seems simple in concept but in fact is deceptively hard by feel alone because of several factors. One is that the actual contact point between the two balls is not visible on both balls. You can estimate it on the object ball but you can't really see it on the cueball as it's facing away from you. (there are methods that use the contact points for more precision in aiming)

Two is the illusion that some angles present causing you to hit the ball too thin or too thick consistently.

A good aiming system doesn't rely on contact points and it removes the illusion effect. But, you must learn and understand the method without shortcuts and above all put in the practice time diligently to make a good aiming system a natural part of your game. Something that you do automatically almost without thinking about it as you approach the table. Doing that will translate into better use of your time and allow you to improve faster than using pure feel.

For example I like to say that CTE (my preferred method) is like having a set of keys that work for any shot. Instead of guessing at the aim by feel I have practiced enough with CTE that I can look at any shot and know which CTE alignment or key is the right one. In some cases I might face a shot that I have never tried before and in that situation I can eliminate say four of the six keys I have to choose from and focus on the last two. So at worst I have a 50% chance of aiming correctly even on a shot I have never practiced before. And if I am right then after that I own that shot. If I am wrong I still own it BECAUSE the other of the two keys will be right.

That's the beauty of learning a good aiming method. It is there for you all the time and remains accurate. Feel "feels" better but making more shots more often feels even better than that.

 

[JB Cases]

It tells me that there is a wild separation of ability between aiming system advocates.

Again, you missed the point.

I was only pointing out to John the fallacy of his line of thinking in that regard.

I made the point that what I said was hypothetical & not fact nor suggestion.

You really need to take your blinders off.

In every other sport the top finishers are copied. Those below them want to try and emulate those finishing higher in every way possible so that they can experience the same rate of success hopefully. They try to copy the methods used.

A guy who works for me is a very good player. One of the best in Oklahoma, Sean King. Recently we watched the video where SVB describes and demonstrates his aiming method. It is a stick method using the ferrule and the shaft. My friend who beats the ghost playing ten ball took it to the table and worked on it for a few days and immediately improved his accuracy. He showed me some rail shots for example where he was rifling balls in down the rail on tight pockets. Something he had been having trouble with previously. But due to copying Shane and following the directions he, already a great player, got even better.

And the immediate result for him? He won an amateur tournament against the best amateurs in Oklahoma - a lot of very strong players - easily. This despite not putting in much practice other than several days prior to the event learning the aiming method.

Of course he might very well have won without the system but the fact is that he knows he became a better shotmaker in the space of a few days by virtue of learning Shane's method.

 

[Ron Swanson]

In every other sport the top finishers are copied. Those below them want to try and emulate those finishing higher in every way possible so that they can experience the same rate of success hopefully. They try to copy the methods used.

A guy who works for me is a very good player. One of the best in Oklahoma, Sean King. Recently we watched the video where SVB describes and demonstrates his aiming method. It is a stick method using the ferrule and the shaft. My friend who beats the ghost playing ten ball took it to the table and worked on it for a few days and immediately improved his accuracy. He showed me some rail shots for example where he was rifling balls in down the rail on tight pockets. Something he had been having trouble with previously. But due to copying Shane and following the directions he, already a great player, got even better.

And the immediate result for him? He won an amateur tournament against the best amateurs in Oklahoma - a lot of very strong players - easily. This despite not putting in much practice other than several days prior to the event learning the aiming method.

Of course he might very well have won without the system but the fact is that he knows he became a better shotmaker in the space of a few days by virtue of learning Shane's method.

Beginners aside, I've yet to see irrefutable proof someone becomes a better player through learning an aiming system.