Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[(((Satori)))]

Sigh.

Lack of comprehension and talking past each other (not just you, but some system "attackers" too) is what makes these arguments go on and on for years.

pj <- maybe you're reading in Chinese?
chgo

John has comprehended many things in the past but still talked past them. That's when I pretty much gave up on debating with him.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Good Morning John,

How do you 'know' that?

If the aiming is wrong because a conscious method was used or the stance bad, or whatever, then the subconscious will many times try to save the shot & the result is a 'bad' stroke.

When people say, 'you missed because you 'jumped up' & made a bad stroke' they are mostly wrong.

The individual jumped up because the subconscious was trying to save the shot from something already wrong like, aim, stance, or an already bad stroke.

So... how do you 'know' exactly why you miss.

You imply with this simple answer that CTE is never the cause of a miss for you & that it is always your stroke.

You don't 'know' that.

Just because there are those that play very well with CTE does not mean that it's CTE that got them their. They may have been the very good players that they are with or with out CTE.

When Colin reviewed some video of Gerry demonstrating CTE, he discerned where the video would allow that Gerry was swiping off of the V of his bridge & still pocketing the balls.

That could well be Gerry saving shots that was misaligned with CTE & his subconscious subjectivity took over & voided the 'system'.

I think it would be an interesting study for you, if you were to get one of those mechanical cues & do some testing without your stroke. You use CTE, set the cue & pull the trigger.

I think that would be a reasonable test, FOR YOU.

I still think that the final setting of the cue is a subjective task & NOT totally objective, but let's not go into all of that.

It's an easy out to say that misses when someone uses the method are most all related to stroke.

You basically agreed with Dan White other than that he said knowing where to hit the OB is easy & it's the stroke to get it there that is the issue.

So if that IS the issue in both cases one should spend their time & money on stroke mechanics & not ANY aiming method.

You've wasted much time & effort on CTE when perhaps you should have spent that time & effort on your stroke.

I'm just trying to be helpful & I think that mechanical cue might be a good idea for you & perhaps others.

Best Wishes.

Through careful study.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

See what I mean P.J.

English made a great post that John understood but he still just talked right past it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Through careful study.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

John,

How have you studied ANY of your individual missed shots to determine whether the miss was aim or stroke related?

I'd like to do the same for myself.

Thanks in Advance.

 

[mortuarymike-nv]

Mirror

John,

How have you studied ANY of your individual missed shots to determine whether the miss was aim or stroke related?

I'd like to do the same for myself.

Thanks in Advance.

Use a mirror on the rail, that will take care of all your aiming issues.
then you can work on stance stroke speed and spin.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

ENGLISH!:
You imply with this simple answer that CTE is never the cause of a miss for you & that it is always your stroke.

To be fair, I don't believe CTE causes misses - I believe it helps avoid missing, just as its users say it does. I just don't think they understand how it does that - and for them that's good enough. But for those wanting to understand it without the cheerleading, it's fundamental info.

pj
chgo

 

[(((Satori)))]

To be fair, I don't believe CTE causes misses - I believe it helps avoid missing, just as its users say it does. I just don't think they understand how it does that - and for them that's good enough. But for those wanting to understand it without the cheerleading, it's fundamental info.

pj
chgo

If a player is able to quit thinking and allow himself to align and drop in with a pivot while believing he has done what is needed to pocket the ball into center pocket then cte will likely work and not "cause" a miss.

It's all about being able to get that picture of the outcome in your head and trusting you can do it... then relax letting your body do the action.



If a player believes he needs to find a precise visual and precisely drop in on a 1/2 tip pivot and he consciously does this to the best of his ability. Then he will likely miss a lot of shots caused directly because of cte imo.

 

[ENGLISH!]

See what I mean P.J.

English made a great post that John understood but he still just talked right past it.

It's not just John. Others do the same thing.

They ignore all logic & common sense 'argument' & come back with nothing of any real substance other than 'mysticism' as to why it's a totally objective system that is not dependent on subjectivity or argue what perception & objectivity is in the face of normal definition, meaning, & usage.

I tried to stay off of that topic, but one side should not be allowed to put out what ever they want through either direct words or implication without the other side also being expressed.

I don't think the digs at each other on either side are productive.

I think my mechanical cue idea is a good one in some regards but may certainly not be conclusive in other regards.

I fully expect my stalking nemesis to come along at any time.

I do agree with John though, that if CTE helps anyone play better for whatever reason, then that is a good thing. If it works for them & they think it is the main reason for their improvement, then so be it.

I don't think that that will be universal though. We each have our own perception of what is correct for each shot & CTE will not eliminate that.

Some have said that one must clear their mind of all else & just apply the 'system'. They do not realize that WHEN THAT IS ACTUALLY DONE one is left with ONLY a limited amount of shot lines per the visuals & pivot in either direction. The final step to seeing the proper line is based on the perception of the shot at hand off of a particular CTE visual & THAT is subjectively based & there are no objective instructions nor directions to arrive at that conclusion.

I fully expect to receive personal attacks with no logical 'argument' to refute what I've said.

Best 2 ALL.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If a player believes he needs to find a precise visual and precisely drop in on a 1/2 tip pivot and he consciously does this to the best of his ability. Then he will likely miss a lot of shots caused directly because of cte imo.

I see this as being pretty much like all aiming - with or without a "pivot" we all place our cues on the shot line somehow.

I agree the pivot adds another step that may be unnecessary for you and me, but it may help others, for instance by focusing on precise bridge placement.

pj
chgo

 

[(((Satori)))]

It's not just John. Others do the same thing.

They ignore all logic & common sense 'argument' & come back with nothing of any real substance other than 'mysticism' as to why it's a totally objective system that is not dependent on subjectivity or argue what perception & objectivity is in the face of normal definition, meaning, & usage.

I tried to stay off of that topic, but one side should not be allowed to put out what ever they want through either direct words or implication without the other side also being expressed.

I don't think the digs at each other on either side are productive.

I think my mechanical cue idea is a good one in some regards but may certainly not be conclusive in other regards.

I fully expect my stalking nemesis to come along at any time.

I do agree with John though, that if CTE helps anyone play better for whatever reason, then that is a good thing. If it works for them & they think it is the main reason for their improvement, then so be it.

I don't think that that will be universal though. We each have our own perception of what is correct for each shot & CTE will not eliminate that.

Some have said that one must clear their mind of all else & just apply the 'system'. They do not realize that WHEN THAT IS ACTUALLY DONE one is left with ONLY a limited amount of shot lines per the visuals & pivot in either direction. The final step to seeing the proper line is based on the perception of the shot at hand off of a particular CTE visual & THAT is subjectively based & there are no objective instructions nor directions to arrive at that conclusion.

I fully expect to receive personal attacks with no logical 'argument' to refute what I've said.

Best 2 ALL.

I agree with all of what you said here.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Use a mirror on the rail, that will take care of all your aiming issues.
then you can work on stance stroke speed and spin.

Thanks.

But... how will that allow me to STUDY if a particular miss was aim or stroke related?

I've been playing rather well for nearly 50 years. I usually have an idea why I miss when I do. It's the 'knowing' part that's a bit more difficult.

I think we all know that it is just because something is a bit off & that sometimes one thing can cause another.

If all is right the ball pockets. If only one component is off the ball generally does not pocket, that is unless something else went 'off' to compensate for the initial 'off'.

Thanks again for trying to be of assistance.

 

[Dan White]

$1000 Bet

Let's take 100 people who post to this forum and video tape their stroke. One slow motion shot from the front, one from the back and one overhead.

This is not just any 100 people. People on this forum are fanatics and some are professionals. We're not talking 100 amateurs or people who don't know which end of a cue to hold.

I'd bet almost anything that less than 10% of these people have a more or less perfect stroke for any medium to hard stroked shot. This is a stroke where if you saw nothing but the cue move back and forth, it would have no sideways motion at any point.

Of those 90% with stroke problems, not one of them will know what that problem is or why they do it. They pocket balls, but their brain has learned how to adjust for stroke errors by introducing aim errors.

I'm just saying that I could teach a beginner how to aim at the correct spot far more quickly than I could get them to deliver the cue without error. Give them an Iron Willie machine with a sight glass (theoretically) and tell them to pocket balls. How long do you think it would take before they pocket every single ball they aim at... days or weeks?

I've played around with CTE and I'm sure it can help beginners find the contact point on more difficult shots. I didn't find it useful because I almost never miss a shot due to aim, IMO. I just don't need a system because my brain already knows where the cue ball needs to go to pocket the ball.

My point to John is that while he uses CTE to get into the set up position, I don't think he really needs it. After playing as long as he does, I can't imagine he doesn't know where to send the cue ball.

I also don't think the "hit a million balls" method is really a million balls. I'd say hit thousands of balls and spend more time on perfecting your stroke. Also, go buy Mark Wilson's book.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I see this as being pretty much like all aiming - with or without a "pivot" we all place our cues on the shot line somehow.

I agree the pivot adds another step that may be unnecessary for you and me, but it may help others, for instance by focusing on precise bridge placement.

pj
chgo

The point of my post being I believe that cte works for the ones that it does because of the belief and trust they have in the system if they allow their body to trust and relax and fall on the shot line.

Basically all of the things needed to allow the subconscious to do its thing.

Yes the same can be said for a lot of aiming methods or systems or whatever.

 

[cookie man]

I grant that it probably seems that way to you, but you really have no way of knowing - that's what "subconscious" means. The only thing we have to help us measure it is geometry + reason/logic.

This is one of the many things you guys simply don't get.


John, for the umpteenth time + 1, learn to read. It's right there in the post you quoted:

"Remember, I'm not talking about proof that CTE helps its users (I grant that)"

And for the umpteenth time +2, here's the part that can't be proved one way or the other, particularly with a video:

"I'm talking about how it does that. It doesn't do it without the need for "feel"."

You can't even prove with a video that you're actually using CTE. Of course we take your word for that, but there's no proof of it in the video.

Another thing you still misunderstand after all these years.

Lack of comprehension and talking past each other (not just you, but some system "attackers" too) is what makes these arguments go on and on for years.

Sigh.

pj <- maybe you're still reading in Chinese?
chgo

PJ we get what you are trying to say, you've said it enough, it just doesn't pertain to cte although you think it does.

 

[cookie man]

Good Morning John,

How do you 'know' that?

If the aiming is wrong because a conscious method was used or the stance bad, or whatever, then the subconscious will many times try to save the shot & the result is a 'bad' stroke.

When people say, 'you missed because you 'jumped up' & made a bad stroke' they are mostly wrong.

The individual jumped up because the subconscious was trying to save the shot from something already wrong like, aim, stance, or an already bad stroke.

So... how do you 'know' exactly why you miss.

You imply with this simple answer that CTE is never the cause of a miss for you & that it is always your stroke.

You don't 'know' that.

Just because there are those that play very well with CTE does not mean that it's CTE that got them their. They may have been the very good players that they are with or with out CTE.

When Colin reviewed some video of Gerry demonstrating CTE, he discerned where the video would allow that Gerry was swiping off of the V of his bridge & still pocketing the balls.

That could well be Gerry saving shots that was misaligned with CTE & his subconscious subjectivity took over & voided the 'system'.

I think it would be an interesting study for you, if you were to get one of those mechanical cues & do some testing without your stroke. You use CTE, set the cue & pull the trigger.

I think that would be a reasonable test, FOR YOU.

I still think that the final setting of the cue is a subjective task & NOT totally objective, but let's not go into all of that.

It's an easy out to say that misses when someone uses the method are most all related to stroke.

You basically agreed with Dan White other than that he said knowing where to hit the OB is easy & it's the stroke to get it there that is the issue.

So if that IS the issue in both cases one should spend their time & money on stroke mechanics & not ANY aiming method.

You've wasted much time & effort on CTE when perhaps you should have spent that time & effort on your stroke.

I'm just trying to be helpful & I think that mechanical cue might be a good idea for you & perhaps others.

Best Wishes.

And the counter reply for me is that since becoming proficient with CTE i rarely pop up or steer the cue. I do stroke bad on occasion, and i know when i do, but the other problems have ceased.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

PJ we get what you are trying to say

You obviously don't.

you've said it enough

I certainly have.

it just doesn't pertain to cte

Of course it does - unless CTE really is "aiming from another dimension". If it is, I suggest you find a forum in that "other dimension" to discuss it. Your non-arguments might sound perfectly rational there.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

If a player is able to quit thinking and allow himself to align and drop in with a pivot while believing he has done what is needed to pocket the ball into center pocket then cte will likely work and not "cause" a miss.

It's all about being able to get that picture of the outcome in your head and trusting you can do it... then relax letting your body do the action.



If a player believes he needs to find a precise visual and precisely drop in on a 1/2 tip pivot and he consciously does this to the best of his ability. Then he will likely miss a lot of shots caused directly because of cte imo.

It's actually quite the opposite. The manual pivot is the most reliable. I even go back to the half ball pivot on occasion.
I do play mostly with the air pivot though

 

[ENGLISH!]

The point of my post being I believe that cte works for the ones that it does because of the belief and trust they have in the system if they allow their body to trust and relax and fall on the shot line.

Basically all of the things needed to allow the subconscious to do its thing.

Yes the same can be said for a lot of aiming methods or systems or whatever.

Here's the thing that 8Pack/Anthony, I, & I think you did.

We applied the system objectively & found that it had holes when done so strictly objectively.

That told us that the 'system' is not a system & that the method for complete efficiency for ALL of the shots requires subjectivity based off of the small array of 'objective' visuals to fill the gaps between those visuals.

As I, PJ, & others have said, there simply are not enough 'objective' keys even times two for the thinning & thickening pivots to objectively cover ALL of the shots.

So, as you sort of suggest without specifically saying it, it is the free use of their subjectivity that allows those that have been successful with it to be successful with it.

'They' say, 'OH NO! That's not how it works. It's a totally objective system.

Hence the on going 'debate'.

Best 2 All.

 

[cookie man]

It's not just John. Others do the same thing.

They ignore all logic & common sense 'argument' & come back with nothing of any real substance other than 'mysticism' as to why it's a totally objective system that is not dependent on subjectivity or argue what perception & objectivity is in the face of normal definition, meaning, & usage.

I tried to stay off of that topic, but one side should not be allowed to put out what ever they want through either direct words or implication without the other side also being expressed.

I don't think the digs at each other on either side are productive.

I think my mechanical cue idea is a good one in some regards but may certainly not be conclusive in other regards.

I fully expect my stalking nemesis to come along at any time.

I do agree with John though, that if CTE helps anyone play better for whatever reason, then that is a good thing. If it works for them & they think it is the main reason for their improvement, then so be it.

I don't think that that will be universal though. We each have our own perception of what is correct for each shot & CTE will not eliminate that.

Some have said that one must clear their mind of all else & just apply the 'system'. They do not realize that WHEN THAT IS ACTUALLY DONE one is left with ONLY a limited amount of shot lines per the visuals & pivot in either direction. The final step to seeing the proper line is based on the perception of the shot at hand off of a particular CTE visual & THAT is subjectively based & there are no objective instructions nor directions to arrive at that conclusion.

I fully expect to receive personal attacks with no logical 'argument' to refute what I've said.

Best 2 ALL.

The users base there answers from actually using cte over and over, its pretty simple.
We get tired of discussing the same things over and over with people that have admitted they will never use it, and never took the time to learn it, kinda crazy don't you think.
PJ has been told for like 15 yrs he has the wrong understanding of cte but he puts the same old same old useless opinion out there over and over.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Through careful study.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

You wouldn't have any photos we could carefully study, would you? :wink:

 

[cookie man]

Here's the thing that 8Pack/Anthony, I, & I think you did.

We applied the system objectively & found that it had holes when done so strictly objectively.

That told us that the 'system' is not a system & that the method for complete efficiency for ALL of the shots requires subjectivity based off of the small array of 'objective' visuals to fill the gaps between those visuals.

As I, PJ, & others have said, there simply are not enough 'objective' keys even times two for the thinning & thickening pivots to objectively cover ALL of the shots.

So, as you sort of suggest without specifically saying it, it is the free use of their subjectivity that allows those that have been successful with it to be successful with it.

They say, 'OH NO! That's not how it works, it's a totally objective system.

Hence the on going 'debate'.

Best 2 All.

First no one has posted any shots that would prove a hole in the system.
Second doesn't it seem a little silly to say we take a small amount of objective keys, (sounds like we can only make balls from what, 6 precise angles) and have to subconsciously adjust for all others. Do you REALLY think that's what we do and that's what all the fuss is about?