Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

  • I always go by feel

    Votes: 153 53.5%
  • Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots

    Votes: 68 23.8%
  • Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots

    Votes: 24 8.4%
  • I always use aiming systems

    Votes: 26 9.1%
  • I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink

    Votes: 15 5.2%

  • Total voters
    286
This debate is completely ridiculous. The vitriol is real.

It seems I opened a very big can of worms.

This fight has been going on for a couple decades for a few of these guys. You just gave them another opportunity to go at each other, yet again. If you hadn't brought it up, someone else would have. Its like the three of them have a "CTE Alert", a beacon that beckons them back to the arena anytime the subject comes up on the forum, to restart the fight anew....

The rest of them simply like to pile on, and instigate things further.

Its a damned shame because the main protagonists have so much to share, yet they continue in this ceaseless dance.
 
The Beacon

This fight has been going on for a couple decades for a few of these guys. You just gave them another opportunity to go at each other, yet again. If you hadn't brought it up, someone else would have. Its like the three of them have a "CTE Alert", a beacon that beckons them back to the arena anytime the subject comes up on the forum, to restart the fight anew....

The rest of them simply like to pile on, and instigate things further.

Its a damned shame because the main protagonists have so much to share, yet they continue in this ceaseless dance.

That pretty accurate!

Just like in the movie.....Kungfu Hustle.....maybe?....they light a Roman Candle and shoot it up in the sky then the Ax Gang shows up in mass....lol
 
I have never and would never say that subconscious anything is NOT possible.

All I have said and continue to say is that using CTE is a VERY CONSCIOUS process. A player who is well versed in CTE is making deliberate conscious choices.

What I have said many times which the "must be subconscious adjustment" crowd REFUSES - talking to you Pat Johnson primarily - is how do you account for the misses in the subconscious adjustment paradigm?

Specifically if you want to say that users of CTE are subconsciously adjusting to the right shot line when they report an improvement in their shotmaking then how do you account for the times they miss? Is their subconscious taking a break periodically?

I mean assuming that a person's stroke is sufficiently good to rule out throwing the cueball off line it seems that you really can't have it both ways saying that SC adjustment is responsible for the makes and misses.

So, for the record I will maintain that using CTE feels like there is NO subconscious adjustment. For every shot faced there is a specific set of steps to perceive the correct visuals and that leads the player to set down their bridge hand on what shot line they will use. For myself and many CTE users this process is deliberate and quick and is not at all in doubt. We don't get down and get up and get down and get up. We perceive the lines as taught and get down with confidence that the shot line IS correct and more often than not it turns out to be correct.

So......IF - and I have said this hundreds of times as well - IF there is some sub (as in unknown and unfelt) subconscious adjustment in that deliberate process it does not matter to the conscious shooter because the RESULTS are an improved accuracy that is clearly measurable.
Hi JB,

I've been thinking about this overnight, and I think I jumped the gun a bit and was unnecessarily harsh.

Some of your comments along similar lines to this one, "I have never and would never say that subconscious anything is NOT possible.", upon deeper thinking, do not necessarily confirm the use of feel or intuitive adjustments in the same way that myself and some others have hypothesized.

The concept of feel or intuitive adjustments / aligning / visual perception is in fact more complex than it may first appear.

Aspect 1: Intuitive adjustments may be entirely subconscious but they can also be consciously activated, such that one deliberately seeks for intuitive subconscious faculties to guide them.

e.g. When aligned and feathering on a cut shot, I request by thought, an imagined perception of the path the OB will take, and via the intuitive feedback, consciouly requested but coming from some subconscious faculty within my mind, I adjust until the feedback accords with my goal.

Aspect 2: Even a totally objective method will require intuitive adjustment for some, such that visual perceptions are in accord with objective requirements.

e.g. On a dead straight shot, where the aim points are purely objective, our alignment to these points usually require intuitive adjustments due to imperfections in our ability to perceive alignment. Unless someone has perfect perception, or has developed a gun sight type method, just getting out bridge pivot on the line through centers requires some feedback from our subconscious intuitive faculties.

To extend these ideas to CTE, there are areas where both aspects may be occurring. These areas include:
1. Perception of the visual.
2. For manual pivot, the placement of the hand pre-pivot.
3. For manual pivot, the nature of the pivot.
4. For air pivot, the nature of the rotation.

Because of these aspects I mention above, and because these areas of the process are learned by practice more so than following quantifiable processes, I'm of the strong opinion that intuitive adjustments are being made, albeit not consciously directed.

But, as others have mentioned, it doesn't matter if it achieves the goal of getting the player to the line of the shot.

I suspect the process helps some people considerably by allowing them to tune into their intuitive faculties without the distraction of trying to align to points, imaginary balls, line to pocket and so on, and that repeating the process without swiping, bridge shifting, second guessing during the stroke, sets them on a path of improving the intuitive faculties that assist in finding the required aim line.

Cheers,
Colin
 
Sergio is a very, very good player who has been playing since a very young age. His father Joe was also a very long top player in WI. I assume the player you are talking about is Tyler, has is also one of the top players in WI. I wouldnt say that Sergio crushes Tyler as a player, either one has as good a chance at winning on any particular day. Its a little unfair to say that Sergio will crush Tyler, both are extremely accomplished in their own right and both are still young. Check you facts a little better before making outrageous claims.

Chill. I already talked to Tyler about this and the way I worded things in my post caused some drama because it was implying a lot of things that I wasn't intending it to.

Anyone who's ever picked up a cue would be a complete idiot to say Tyler cannot player.
 
This fight has been going on for a couple decades for a few of these guys. You just gave them another opportunity to go at each other, yet again. If you hadn't brought it up, someone else would have. Its like the three of them have a "CTE Alert", a beacon that beckons them back to the arena anytime the subject comes up on the forum, to restart the fight anew....

The rest of them simply like to pile on, and instigate things further.

Its a damned shame because the main protagonists have so much to share, yet they continue in this ceaseless dance.
The fact that they keep happening isn't surprising to me. This thread is a perfect example of why - there are always new readers who should be able to hear a healthy exchange of views about it when it comes up, especially if it's controversial.

It's the healthy part we have trouble with. But I'd rather have a little traditional contrariness than half the story told.

pj <- protagonist
chgo
 
The fact that they keep happening isn't surprising to me. This thread is a perfect example of why - there are always new readers who should be able to hear a healthy exchange of views about it when it comes up, especially if it's controversial.

It's the healthy part we have trouble with. But I'd rather have a little traditional contrariness than half the story told.

pj <- protagonist
chgo

I agree that a certain amount of contrariness isn't a bad thing.

The trick is keeping it from going nuclear.
 
Most likely 95% or more of the people that say they don't use a system, do indeed start each shot with one and then tweek the shot before pulling the trigger. I don't mean complicated systems like CTE. I mean like ghost ball, contact to contact (imaginary line from middle of OB). and a few more simple ones. Johnnyt
 
Most likely 95% or more of the people that say they don't use a system, do indeed start each shot with one and then tweek the shot before pulling the trigger. I don't mean complicated systems like CTE. I mean like ghost ball, contact to contact (imaginary line from middle of OB). and a few more simple ones. Johnnyt

Most people know where to aim to make a ball. Use whatever system you want it still comes down to a small area of the OB that needs to be hit in order for it to go in the pocket.

The alignment and delivery system is the hard part. Aiming is easy. When you miss shots it isn't because you didn't know where to aim it's because you failed to hit the target spot or skid or swerve or a piece of chalk on the table or.....
 
Most people know where to aim to make a ball. Use whatever system you want it still comes down to a small area of the OB that needs to be hit in order for it to go in the pocket.

The alignment and delivery system is the hard part. Aiming is easy. When you miss shots it isn't because you didn't know where to aim it's because you failed to hit the target spot or skid or swerve or a piece of chalk on the table or.....

I 100% agree with you. Johnnyt
 
Tap, tap, tap! :thumbup:

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Most people know where to aim to make a ball. Use whatever system you want it still comes down to a small area of the OB that needs to be hit in order for it to go in the pocket.

The alignment and delivery system is the hard part. Aiming is easy. When you miss shots it isn't because you didn't know where to aim it's because you failed to hit the target spot or skid or swerve or a piece of chalk on the table or.....
 
Most people know where to aim to make a ball. Use whatever system you want it still comes down to a small area of the OB that needs to be hit in order for it to go in the pocket.

The alignment and delivery system is the hard part. Aiming is easy. When you miss shots it isn't because you didn't know where to aim it's because you failed to hit the target spot or skid or swerve or a piece of chalk on the table or.....
I disagree with this.

Perhaps, more accurately, I think this common belief disregards a crucial ingredient, and that this leads most people to this wrong conclusion.

That crucial ingredient is bridge positioning, onto that aim line.

I agree that most have a pretty good capacity to learn to see where to aim, though it is usually a capacity that needs regular practice to fine tune.

But, due to common problems people have with perception, and aligning the cue through CB during the aim line perception and bridge positioning phase, they commonly place their bridge pivot 1mm or so off their perceived aim line.

A 1mm error in bridge positioning for a 10 inch bridge, leads to an aiming error of 6mm over 5 feet of CB travel, that converts to the CB and OB contact point being half that, 3mm or 1/16th ball off aim for near straight shots.

This leads to significant missing on longer shots.

As way of comparison, as most players bridge somewhere near their cue's pivot point usually, a stroking error that hits the CB 4mm off the intended aim point, will create significantly less deviation of the CB path, on medium to firm speed pots over 5 feet, than will the 1mm misplacement of the bridge pivot.

I doubt there is anyone in this forum who regularly strokes badly enough to miss their intended CB contact point by 4mm or more, but I guarantee that all but a few regularly place their bridge hand pivot 1mm or more off their intended aim line.

This really deserves some deeper thought for the proponents of the 'aiming is easy' theory. It needs to be remembered that the crucial determinant of aiming application, is the setting of the bridge pivot position upon the line of aim.

Colin

Note: As I bridge at, or very close to my cue's pivot point, on firm long shots, it's almost impossible for me to miss my aimed to OB contact point by more than 1mm over 5 feet, no matter how or where I stroke the CB, so long as it's firm and doesn't have time to swerve significantly. Of course variations in throw need to be compensated for, but that is another issue. Comparing this to aiming errors, my bridge pivot position only has to be 0.3mm off the aim line to produce the same error that my stroke is capable of producing in a worst case stroke scenario. 0.3mm is hardly discernible during alignment.
 
Last edited:
This fight has been going on for a couple decades for a few of these guys. You just gave them another opportunity to go at each other, yet again. If you hadn't brought it up, someone else would have. Its like the three of them have a "CTE Alert", a beacon that beckons them back to the arena anytime the subject comes up on the forum, to restart the fight anew....

The rest of them simply like to pile on, and instigate things further.

Its a damned shame because the main protagonists have so much to share, yet they continue in this ceaseless dance.

If you go back there are 3 pages of post that not one cte person said something. However the baiting just continued on and on. It wasn't enough for people to vote and then say how they aimed. They so called non system users had to pile on about how bad aiming systems are.
 
Even harder if you're trying to prove the impossible. I feel for ya.

pj
chgo

But it seems to only be impossible for you. Could it be because your life's mission has been proven wrong and you can't admit total failure.
I don't really feel for you but if you do a diagram i'll reconsider
 
Any proof would be good enough - you guys just don't know what a proof is. (Hint: "Look, I can make shots!" isn't it.)

Remember, I'm not talking about proof that CTE helps its users (I grant that) - I'm talking about how it does that. It doesn't do it without the need for "feel".

pj
chgo

sigh - and again for the umpteenth time - if there is "feel" then it is very very very little. Feel runs the scale from pure guessing to knowledgeable deliberation. CTE is way closer to the deliberate application end of the spectrum.

And for all of human history demonstrations of method and showing predicted success is considered a valid form of proof that a method is good to use.

Such methods are then adopted and used UNTIL they are found to have some issues, do not produce the results, or are supplanted by a better method.

So no one needs to prove anything about CTE to you. You absolutely do not matter anymore. What you did that was great is to antagonize Stan and thus encourage him and others to make videos and spread the word about CTE far beyond AZB
 
Hi JB,

I've been thinking about this overnight, and I think I jumped the gun a bit and was unnecessarily harsh.

Some of your comments along similar lines to this one, "I have never and would never say that subconscious anything is NOT possible.", upon deeper thinking, do not necessarily confirm the use of feel or intuitive adjustments in the same way that myself and some others have hypothesized.

The concept of feel or intuitive adjustments / aligning / visual perception is in fact more complex than it may first appear.

Aspect 1: Intuitive adjustments may be entirely subconscious but they can also be consciously activated, such that one deliberately seeks for intuitive subconscious faculties to guide them.

e.g. When aligned and feathering on a cut shot, I request by thought, an imagined perception of the path the OB will take, and via the intuitive feedback, consciouly requested but coming from some subconscious faculty within my mind, I adjust until the feedback accords with my goal.

Aspect 2: Even a totally objective method will require intuitive adjustment for some, such that visual perceptions are in accord with objective requirements.

e.g. On a dead straight shot, where the aim points are purely objective, our alignment to these points usually require intuitive adjustments due to imperfections in our ability to perceive alignment. Unless someone has perfect perception, or has developed a gun sight type method, just getting out bridge pivot on the line through centers requires some feedback from our subconscious intuitive faculties.

To extend these ideas to CTE, there are areas where both aspects may be occurring. These areas include:
1. Perception of the visual.
2. For manual pivot, the placement of the hand pre-pivot.
3. For manual pivot, the nature of the pivot.
4. For air pivot, the nature of the rotation.

Because of these aspects I mention above, and because these areas of the process are learned by practice more so than following quantifiable processes, I'm of the strong opinion that intuitive adjustments are being made, albeit not consciously directed.

But, as others have mentioned, it doesn't matter if it achieves the goal of getting the player to the line of the shot.

I suspect the process helps some people considerably by allowing them to tune into their intuitive faculties without the distraction of trying to align to points, imaginary balls, line to pocket and so on, and that repeating the process without swiping, bridge shifting, second guessing during the stroke, sets them on a path of improving the intuitive faculties that assist in finding the required aim line.

Cheers,
Colin

If the summary of your post is that every person has the intuition to get to the right shot and CTE is a catalyst to unlocking that I can somewhat agree. In fact it may very well be that teaching Ghost Ball is actually counter-intuitive and that if a player never learned how to aim using it then they may in fact develop perceptions that cause them to align to shots in a fashion similar to what using CTE consciously produces.
 
This debate is completely ridiculous. The vitriol is real.

It seems I opened a very big can of worms.

If this is what you get out of it then you don't understand anything of what you are reading. The debate is important and the vitriol is silly.

Who cares if you opened up an old topic. Truth remains truth no matter what.

No amount of knocking can make it otherwise. But it seems by your signature that you have chosen your "aiming" method so get busy on those million balls. Someone who uses CTE will get far more productive practice out of their million than you will.
 
If the summary of your post is that every person has the intuition to get to the right shot and CTE is a catalyst to unlocking that I can somewhat agree. In fact it may very well be that teaching Ghost Ball is actually counter-intuitive and that if a player never learned how to aim using it then they may in fact develop perceptions that cause them to align to shots in a fashion similar to what using CTE consciously produces.
I suspect there is something to that JB,

That thinking of things like ghost ball, contact points, double distance offset or fraction of overlap etc lead to overthinking during the time when all that is really needed is allowing one's intuition to fall into the line of the shot.

Colin
 
sigh - and again for the umpteenth time - if there is "feel" then it is very very very little. Feel runs the scale from pure guessing to knowledgeable deliberation. CTE is way closer to the deliberate application end of the spectrum.

And for all of human history demonstrations of method and showing predicted success is considered a valid form of proof that a method is good to use.

Such methods are then adopted and used UNTIL they are found to have some issues, do not produce the results, or are supplanted by a better method.

So no one needs to prove anything about CTE to you. You absolutely do not matter anymore. What you did that was great is to antagonize Stan and thus encourage him and others to make videos and spread the word about CTE far beyond AZB

Far beyond azb? Like where? :confused:
 
Why pick on John? Have u seen the comments from Satori? All he does is instigate. Hasn't added one single thing, positive or negative to the aiming debates in all his time on here.

Provoke- 1) stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.
2) stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, especially by arousing anger in them.


I'm not sure instigate is the right word. Provoke maybe... I'll try to watch that.:)

For the most part I do believe what I say though. Do you?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top