This is the biggest delusion of cue sports.
I explained why earlier in this thread here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5312569&postcount=371
You're welcome to correct me, or just go on believing in something that makes no sense.
Colin
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
I explained why earlier in this thread here: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5312569&postcount=371
You're welcome to correct me, or just go on believing in something that makes no sense.
Colin
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.
Dan, I used to be a diehard "feel" and Million Balls" guy. In fact I wouldn't even OPEN any thread about aiming systems because I thought I had no need for them and they were all complicating an easy point and shoot game.
Then one day out of the blue my friend Bob calls me and says Hal Houle is in Denver and wants to meet you. I said Hal WHO? He said Hal Houle the aiming guy. Well I knew the name because of the aiming threads on RSB but like I said I never opened them. But it was an excuse to play hooky from work and go to Denver to play pool and get in action.
So I go down to Paradise Billiards in the mid-afternoon and meet Bob Johnson (who can and will corroborate this story) and am introduced to Hal Houle. Hal immediately accosts me with a printout of a post I made in a thread sometime in the past. In it he has highlighted a sentence. The post was a response to someone asking about aiming and I had responded that I read in Billiards Digest (or some other magazine) that Johnny Archer said he aims at the GB center and uses his tip to estimate where that is.
I was only posting to be helpful, I didn't even use GB. Anyway this big old man is telling me Johnny doesn't aim that way and the pros won't tell you the truth about how they aim and on and on. He says Earl aims like this...and Efren like this... demonstrating several methods.
I look at Bob and am like WTF??? Bob just smiles. So I hoped someone would come in whom I could match up with and have an excuse to get away from this kook. But no one came in to rescue me. So Hal finally after ten minutes or so says to me I should set up a shot I have trouble with. I do and he tells me to divide the CB into two sections and the OB into three and line the sections up in certain way. Looks and feels very strange and of course the first couple times I completely blow the shot. But since I am trapped I resign myself to giving it an honest try. So I really try to focus and follow his directions and I get down on the shot even though it feels completely wrong. Hal says shoot it and I do and the ball rockets down the rail cleanly and goes in.
I was surprised to say the least. And I did it again and again. Best results I had EVER had on that shot. So then we moved to other shots and Hal continued to instruct me. He showed me several methods but only one stuck with me. We spent about four hours and he was getting really tired so we said our goodbyes. I never saw him in person again but spoke on the phone several times.
I went home and got on my table, a tight barbox, to try this out and see if it was real or whether I was hypnotized. The results were the same to my continued amazement. There is more but I am trying to keep it short. The end result was that I did a 100% flip that day and realized there is a lot more to aiming (and to pool playing) than I thought. I understood then that I could hit another million balls and likely would not have figured out how to aim that way.
Since then I have put a LOT of thought into the why and how these methods work or don't and less actual table time but enough to be proficient and see clear results. So respectfully I can understand your position because I was there but I fully disagree with you because I was lucky enough that Hal chose me to prove wrong on his trip through Denver.
The belief and trust comes from the study of and practice with the method. Since you can't see though my eyes or understand my pool journey my words just don't carry any weight with those who have formed an opinion with no experience of their own on the subject.
I made a lot of videos on aiming systems and CTE mostly as a way to work out my thoughts on the subject and get feedback from others also working with CTE. This has led me to have 100% trust in the steps and visual perceptions to bring me to the shot line regardless of the severity of the cut or the distance.
For me this has had the effect of adding dozens of shots to my "high percentage" make arsenal. Shots that formerly would have been way lower percentage for me and ended many runs now are dropping with much more frequency and allowing me to run out more. That's the bottom line for me. Trust comes through verification and all the aiming systems I learned from Hal and the refined version from Stan have been verified on the table and so are used as trusted and reliable tools. No faith needed.
100% agree. People think it's point and shoot but it's not. If so give a rank beginner or even an APA 4 a cue setup where there is no choice but to deliver a dead straight stroke. All they have to do is place the apparatus and release the cue. I bet that their pocketing percentage is no better than normal and possibly will get worse in this exercise.
This is because in my opinion their "perception" of where the shot line lies is faulty and when they place the cue on that shot line their perception is further confused by the shift in body/eye placement in relation to the table.
Dan,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.
I can set up a shot, with CB and OB 6 feet apart and OB 18 inches from the pocket, and make that shot, with the exact same bridge position and speed of shot, hitting the CB anywhere within the 1.125 inch diameter tip offset zone. Basically my cue is flying in all directions, with the same set aim, but it doesn't affect the line the CB takes.
This is pretty weighty evidence against your theory that one needs to hit precisely at one particular spot on a CB to make a shot.
Colin
Sure, you can find many of them them on YouTube. Unlike you I don't troll anonymously. I put out what I know and what I do under my own name and invite discussion.
Feel free to select what you want and study. We then can debate whether your conclusions are correct or not and whether you critique in or out of context.
I agree with this in principle, but think it also applies to more experienced players (to a lesser degree), and that pocketing percentage would be better even for inexperienced players - after all, you're removing one of the major variables (stroke).
pj
chgo
That's fine & good for you & I'm glad for you.
BUT... what you call "proficient with CTE" is simply putting in the time to build a subconscious subjective data base from which you are now utilizing.
The thing is that you (& others) can't seem to see or understand that reality.
If it truly were a totally objective system it would work right out of the box for EVERYONE with a straight stroke.
What you do to be 'proficient' with the 'objective system' is more than what the actual CTE 'system' is . You've filled in the holes with your subconscious subjective data base.
You do not seem to have any real understanding of just what subjective or objective truly mean.
Or... you do & just want to defend CTE or it's author & there is nothing wrong with that, but it should be done so by logical & rational means & not by attempted changes of what words actually mean or denial of what is actually being done.
How does one fill in for shots between the visuals. The visuals do NOT objectively overlap. So... one must use one's subjective perception to do that.
You, Gerry, Mhort, & others have done that. Some, like TonyTheTiger have not been able to do that because he & those like him are looking for some objective directions or instructions to tell them how to do that.
'Move or rotate until you see the proper perception (perception is subjective) for the shot' is NOT any objective means for filling in between the 'objective visuals'. You, Gerry, Mhort, & others can do that. TonyThe Tiger & others can not because they have not built a sufficient subjective data base.
They don't know what the proper perception is for the shot & can not just move until they see it.
They want that totally objective visual that can not be given to them nor objectively taught to them because none exists.
They can only find it through repetitions of failure & success. When there has been enough of those, for them, then they too will have a sufficient subjective data base from which to draw & utilize just as You, Gerry, Mhort & others now have.
We need to keep in mind that there are two issues in the minds of different individuals.
Some seem to think that CTE is NOT useful & not helpful.
I am not one of those.
It's like PJ continues to say & I agree with him. CTE does not help & is not useful for the reasons of it being a totally objective 'system' or method because it simply is not such & can not be such.
IF anyone is looking for a totally objective system or method, they won't find it because it does not now exist & most probably never will, unless there is some dramatic technological advancement that will give us a pair of 'goggles' that will allow us the see something totally foreign to what we can see at this time. I would not put it past someone's ability to do just that with all of which is going on with interactive devices at this time & what is on the drawing board. There might even be enough monetary incentive to do so given the numbers of league players, etc.
Best 2 All.
PS Consider this. If it's all about the all objective system, then what have you done or do to take any pride or gratification in. You've simply learned a system that anyone that can see can do. You or anyone else is nothing special. Now Earl & Efren, I don;t think they use CTE, but... I could be wrong.
Last edited:
See part of this whole thing is saying so and so made a great post and then so and so ignored it.
The main question, which Rick went on to answer for me, was how I know why I miss.
My answer to that central question was through careful study. It's that simple.
All pool playing is SUBJECTIVE in the sense that it's blobs of flesh trying to manipulate concrete objects. All we can do is try our best using whatever faculties we have to get the cue in the ONLY space that can work to make a shot within the margin of error and then hope that we can control our bodies enough to not screw up on the execution part.
So the bottom line is that when any method is offered that HELPS the shooter to be more consistent on those tasks it should be given a fair shot. If it turns out to not be effective then that will be known quickly when enough people try it. But if it is effective then that will also become known. The situation we have here is effectively a small but tenacious group of people with you included that passively/aggressively tries consistent to STOP people from even trying it.
What could be better to KILL CTE and aiming systems than for thousands of people ENCOURAGED to try them and find out for themselves that CTE doesn't work? If it didn't work and I knew it didn't then I would be SHOUTING go try it. GO TRY IT.
Because then there would be dozens of bad reviews from people who did. Logical insightful reviews with diagrams and videos. Instead what we have are mostly positive testimonials from those who have tried CTE for example. Others have posted positive reviews on other methods. But the sample size is still relatively small because of the ongoing campaign from knockers. This leads to people who won't even try it because the just believe the point-and-shoot nonsense from the knockers.
Can a CTE player sometimes steer a shot? Of course. We are human after all. Does this invalidate CTE? Of course not. The end result is STILL a higher pocketing percentage overall and an increased ability to make harder shots more often. That's really the bottom line here.
Is there feel in pool? Yes there is. Great got that out of the way. Now go learn a better way to aim than just point and shoot and report back on it.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Just stick the damn photos up, John.
Then set it up and lets see. I think that such experiments ought to be relatively easy to construct and cheap. Don't leave it all to Dr. Dave.
Let's move past the silly "feel" nitpick and create substantive data using video that can be used for analysis and discussion instead.
I am sorry who are you and how do I owe you anything?
Referencing the shot below....explain how to make it using CTE or even fractional. Going to the rail first to make the 8 ball in the corner. There is one hole.
How bout a carom shot where you carom the CB off a OB into another OB to make that OB.
Explain those using CTE or fractional.
What the genius's on here overlook is that there are two categories of shots. direct path shots and indirect path shots. Direct path is CB to OB, OB to Pocket. Indirect path is CB to rail to OB, OB to pocket and CB to OB, CB to another OB, OB to Pocket. And then there are combos.
CTE nor fractional, as described, will not work on indirect path shots. It can not because it requires the use of the OB for aiming input same as fractional. Any system that requires the use of the OB for aiming is limited in that that system will not work on indirect path shots.
The only system that works on all shots is Ghost Ball Contact patch. Try and prove me wrong with the shot I posted. As described, CTE will not work for a rail first shot where as Ghost Ball Contact Patch will.
Last edited:
Some are concerned for more than just themselves.
I understand from where John & PJ come in their motivations.
John does not want anything to keep anyone from trying a system as he believes that they are very useful & helpful & he believes that CTE is the best of them. So... he does not want anything to keep anyone from at least trying it.
PJ (& I) do not want anyone to be misled into trying it for invalid reasons.
As I said in my last post, you seem to be including what is not of the 'system' into what you think is the system.
PJ, Satorie, Anthony, Poolplaya, & I do understand the 'system'. It's not at all that complicated (a bit much but not really complicated).
It's the 'was never supposed to be', & the '3D', & the 'connected to the table' & the 'I don't really know why it works but it just does', that we take issue.
You KNOW that it works for you but you do NOT know why it is working for you & it really does not & should not matter to you. But one should not say it works because of X when it is not X.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
I gave him my honest opinion. With his 5 year goal I would save my time and money and bypass cte. He said he still wanted to try it so I said good luck.
I'm not looking to be special but i do take great pride in my pool game, it's pretty good. I think Earl does not use cte but i've seen pretty good evidence that Efren at least uses something very similar if not exactly cte.
The visuals fill in all the so called gaps you like to dream exist, and it's outlined in a totally objective way. In a standing position i get my total aiming done in a VERY OBJECTIVE way. From there, do i use subjectivity and feel to play pool, of course. But make no mistake, CTE outlines very objective points and references to objectively aim any shot i wish to shoot. Just because YOU don't understand that doesn't make you right. I would trust someone who actually knows what they are doing over people who constantly say "I think" this is what they do, and "I think" this is why it can't be true.
No. I think it is that you do not really know what it is that you are actually doing. You do not realize that your subjective subconscious IS involved or that it actually needs to be involved.
It has become & is rather obvious that you do not realize just how limited the actual objective keys actually are.
As I've said you seem to have no real understanding of just what objective & subjective mean or are.
Either that or you are just disingenuous. I certainly do not know which it is, but it must be one or the other.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
Double the distance and use CTE to line up to the doubled ball. You wouldn't have a clue what CTE works for or not.
But let's assume that for this kick shot CTE won't work. Guess what? The shooter can still USE any other method they know including ghost ball. For this one for example finding the GB and doubling that distance is a good way to always hit the ball and sometimes make it. There is no contract that states when a player learns some method of aiming other than GB that they are no longer allowed to use GB.
What does your signature say? Take what is useful and leave the rest? Bruce Lee, someone you clearly just pay lip service too, would have backhanded you into the corner if you had attended his school with the same attitude you display here. Bruce's advice to you would have been to empty your mind so that you could have room for all techniques and thus be able to fairly choose from them what you need to excel as a player.
The fact is that you, after all these years, have never progressed beyond an APA 4. You have learned nothing of value from these forums yet continue to pretend that you have something to offer. I will pay you $50 if you post a video of you running two consecutive racks of 9 ball. You can have the break and ball in hand.