Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[cookie man]

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.

Your posts indicate that you don't know cte very well. And your responses have said you never really learned it totally.
I can tell you why it works for me but you won't like it. It's because totally objective aimpoints have been laid out for me to use to make balls with. And while they are objective points I do admit to using feel and subjectivity in my overall game

 

[JB Cases]

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.

What if your life depended on him being able to run 200 balls by a certain date?

If your two choices were to let him hit a million balls with no instruction or learn CTE and then hit a million balls what would your advice be then?

Mine would be to ship him to Stan and hope he is dedicated to practicing.

 

[ENGLISH!]

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

Colin,

Unless I missed something, I think Dan White & you agree.

I think part of his post was perhaps misstated a bit.

I think you both are talking about execution being the issue.

But...I could be wrong.

Cheers.

 

[JB Cases]

Maybe it was "never supposed to be". I mean CTE and Hal's systems in general are not intuitive. Nothing like them is found in the most read billiard instruction books.

We only have it as a discussion topic because of Hal's efforts to popularize alternatives to Ghost Ball aiming.

So I tend to agree with Stan's sentiment but find that it's a poor choice of words and adds an element of unintended mysticism to the subject.

But instead of nitpicking about the terms why not do your own videos and demonstrate the SUBSTANCE. If you think some description is wrong then get on the table and prove it and THAT is what leads to change. That's how the rest of the world works.

 

[(((Satori)))]

What if your life depended on him being able to run 200 balls by a certain date?

If your two choices were to let him hit a million balls with no instruction or learn CTE and then hit a million balls what would your advice be then?

Mine would be to ship him to Stan and hope he is dedicated to practicing.

What date?

I hope the date allows for us to have had a long and wonderful life.

 

[cookie man]

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 is 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.

Wow, you really analyzed my thinking and know it all,lol.
There are limits to the " actual objective keys" as you call them. It's called POCKETS and they are on a pool table. That's the limit.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Hey I got to go John.

In all seriousness welcome back. It's good to see you posting again.


BTW What happened to all of your 24,000 posts?

 

[JB Cases]

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

Patrick you went to YouTube and whined about your name being used in the video when I made a demonstration to address your point about feel and adjustment. I didn't say one thing mean or nasty to or about you in that video. I only used your name for context and yet you had it censored.

So respectfully, don't tell me what I do and don't understand. I have respected you and not made the videos of you playing and "fidgeting" to find the shot line. As for granting that CTE is beneficial that's not exactly something you could honestly deny at this point anyway.

As for geometry and logic....again unless you are prepared to demonstrate your points it's just words from you. My claim is that CTE aiming covers almost every shot including bank shots and that this has been adequately demonstrated on dozens of videos. If you want to prove otherwise no one is stopping you.

But the video demonstrations showing successful use of CTE have at least 500,000 maybe closer to a million views combined. So I'd say you better get busy.

 

[Colin Colenso]

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.

I'm glad you see some sense in this JB, it seems to fly over many peoples' heads.

I have viced a bridge to the table, with CB and OB placed in dimples 4-5 feet apart, and placed a cardboard curtain b/w CB and OB (not OB and pocket) and made the shot time after time with all manner of strokes.

I video'd some of it, but had some problems executing without the cue slipping out of the small bridge on some attempts due to having my left hand over my head filming the shot during execution, but I think it demonstrates the stroke myth quite well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNKXUQYKckA

Colin

 

[JB Cases]

What date?

I hope the date allows for us to have had a long and wonderful life.

Hey I got to go John.

In all seriousness welcome back. It's good to see you posting again.


BTW What happened to all of your 24,000 posts?

My content made invisible last year at my request. I did this so that I would have no incentive to come to azb and post. I was tired of what was happening and did my version of "take my ball and go home".

Recently I decided to post again because - well I don't really know why since most of the good writers are gone. I guess my main reason is to be able to show off our cases since I don't really see a lot of good discussions after looking at about five pages of threads.

All my content should be visible now.

 

[ENGLISH!]

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.

I would hazard a guess that you will balk at this suggestion as would others.

I would like to have you explain in outcome angles 89 different outcome angles based on the OBJECTIVE alignments along with only just the two extremely definitive pivots.

When you move or rotate to see the proper perception of the shot you are employing subjectivity.

The two balls relative to one another or in a straight line.

Y'all can not have it both ways in a logical 'argument' & say that seeing the CTE & an 'edge to' line places one with a Fixed Cue Ball & then also say that those two lines present themselves differently given the shot that one selects to shoot.

SCIENCE!

 

[Neil]

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 is 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.

You are really something. You can have 100 experts telling you that you don't know what you are talking about, and you will sit there all day explaining to them why, with your very, very, limited knowledge of the subject, they are all wrong. Just amazing.

 

[mortuarymike-nv]

aiming

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.

I got my first pool table in 1962 if that has any purpose to this subject.
The topic was how does someone know if its there aim or stance stroke and follow thru and speed is why you missed a bank or a kick.
But if you want to throw in how many years I have been missing shots , well ok I got about 53 years of playing pool.

I was introduced to the mirror systems about 4 years ago from a guy by the name of Dan Pons.
He is the one who refined or produces the bank bandit and the bank buddy ( Mirror system ) Set of three mirrors which can be mounted to a regulation table by the means of suction cups .
The mirror used as a billiards training tool or devise was invented in the 1890's
Sorry I cannot find the link to the mirrors.
Here is the one on the bank bandit .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wZU_oN8bOM

If you have never used a mirror to bank or kick you really should.
Very cheap experiment to try and you cannot help but to learn something.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick you went to YouTube and whined about your name being used in the video when I made a demonstration to address your point about feel and adjustment. I didn't say one thing mean or nasty to or about you in that video. I only used your name for context and yet you had it censored.

I don't want my name associated with your nonsense videos.

So respectfully, don't tell me what I do and don't understand.

lol

What do those have to do with each other? Never mind; I'm not interested in that part of your "thinking" process.

I have respected you and not made the videos of you playing and "fidgeting" to find the shot line.

Right. You've "respected" me by making that self serving claim many times here in attempts to discredit me.

As for geometry and logic....again unless you are prepared to demonstrate your points it's just words from you.

Well, I've demonstrated the geometry and logic many times (it doesn't take a video) - but you apparently don't grasp those concepts.

My claim is that CTE aiming covers almost every shot including bank shots and that this has been adequately demonstrated on dozens of videos.

Again (for the umpteenth time), videos can't even prove that you're using CTE, much less that you're doing it without feel (if that's what you mean by "covers").

If you want to prove otherwise no one is stopping you.

I've said (just a couple of posts ago, for the umpteenth time) that neither side of the "no feel" claim can be proved except with geometry + reason/logic. If you don't get geometry + reason/logic, then neither side can be proved at all - to you.

But the video demonstrations showing successful use of CTE have at least 500,000 maybe closer to a million views combined. So I'd say you better get busy.

Whatever videos you're talking about, I'm sure that, like all videos before and since, neither of them demonstrated anything except you making shots and claiming how it was done. Apparently you'll never get the distinction - hopefully others will.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

Your posts indicate that you don't know cte very well. And your responses have said you never really learned it totally.
I can tell you why it works for me but you won't like it. It's because totally objective aimpoints have been laid out for me to use to make balls with. And while they are objective points I do admit to using feel and subjectivity in my overall game

See.

Here is the 'attack' on the individual instead of the matters presented. Here is a form of 'the talk around'.

When you say, "I do admit to using feel and subjectivity in my overall game", are you referring to using them in arriving upon the shot line?

If so... we agree & the hub bub can be put to sleep, at least between you & me.

Best Wishes.

 

[Dan White]

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

On the contrary, I'm always open to good ideas. I think Patrick Johnson is, too, but he sets the bar high for proof.

I read your comment earlier in the thread and I don't need to correct you. Your post agrees with what I said. You wrote about the positioning of the bridge hand and associated that with aim. I think a definition of terms is a good idea. When I said aiming is pretty elementary and anybody can do it in pretty short order (which you agreed with more or less) I am saying ONLY THAT. If someone is in a standing position they can learn quickly the correct contact point. Once you get down on the shot and start talking about bridge hand positions, that is all part of the stroke. Of course your stroke won't be straight if the bridge hand is in the wrong position. There are many other variables that make up the complete stroke, too.

I'm actually surprised there is any controversy about this. Is it harder to learn the correct contact point to pocket a ball, or is it harder to deliver the cue ball to that spot with a stick? I can take anybody off the street and he will be able to tell me, with at least some accuracy, where to hit the ball. If I give him a cue and tell him to do it, there is a good chance he will miss the cue ball entirely.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

Unless I missed something, I think Dan White & you agree.

I think part of his post was perhaps misstated a bit.

I think you both are talking about execution being the issue.

But...I could be wrong.

Cheers.

I realized after posting that some may be confused about which part of his post I disagreed with.

It was the part claiming that the stroke was much more important than the aiming, and that aiming was easy.

It wasn't relating to his comments on CTE.

I just linked to a video in another post, where I demonstrate pocketing a ball, with the exact same aim, hitting a full 50% range of possible CB offsets, hence, disproving Dan's claim conclusively, as he says we need to hit one spot, quite precisely to make a pot.

I even was able to reproduce this shot, in practice, with swiping cue movements, but, with 1 hand in the air holding the camera over my head, and looking up and down checking video screen and my cue, in my mini 3mm deep mechanical bridge, I couldn't capture the proper execution of this in my video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNKXUQYKckA

Colin

 

[stan shuffett]

Maybe it was "never supposed to be". I mean CTE and Hal's systems in general are not intuitive. Nothing like them is found in the most read billiard instruction books.

We only have it as a discussion topic because of Hal's efforts to popularize alternatives to Ghost Ball aiming.

So I tend to agree with Stan's sentiment but find that it's a poor choice of words and adds an element of unintended mysticism to the subject.

But instead of nitpicking about the terms why not do your own videos and demonstrate the SUBSTANCE. If you think some description is wrong then get on the table and prove it and THAT is what leads to change. That's how the rest of the world works.

Hi John,
Just for total clarity.
I do not have a treasure chest full of Hal's precise descriptions for CTE but the one's that I do have I am extremely proud of and pleased to share.
The following descriptors are originally from Hal:
NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE
AIMING ON A DIFFERENT PLANE
AIMING IN A NEW DIMENSION
It's phrases like the above that piqued my interest in CTE and highly motivated me to immerse myself in the subject.
I choose to keep those bits of Hal alive and share them for as long as I live.
My near decade long study of CTE has led me to believe that those phrases are absolutely valid descriptors for CTE.
I will be advancing my work once again, this time in text form. I have not let up in any way in getting to the absolute core of CTE.....I can't wait to release my book but it is still months away.
Thank you for your many great posts!
Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

Wow, you really analyzed my thinking and know it all,lol.
There are limits to the " actual objective keys" as you call them. It's called POCKETS and they are on a pool table. That's the limit.

I thought seeing the pocket was NOT necessary.

I thought the 'system' takes one to the pocket.

Does each visual take the ball to a particular pocket?

If the pocket is in play in getting into the proper perception for the shot at hand then one is certainly using subjectivity.

Put a stranger on the table with the curtain up & you or whomever select a visual & pivot for a shot the stranger throws out & the stranger shoots based on those objective directions(instructions) would you expect the stranger to pocket that shot & if so how many such shots would you expect them to make?

Best Wishes.

 

[PINKLADY]

I wish I could lock this thread myself.

for the love of God, please do!

while this recurring debate remains interesting & informative, its intentions get lost when the rhetoric begins. and until Ko, Wu, SVB, Appleton, Mosconi, et al confirm that one solitary "system" is what has made them the best & works for all shots & all players, this remains subjective; futile to argue.

we, as well as the Pros above, have had lessons from several instructors on different aiming systems. we, as well as what we have heard about those Pros, combine & utilize various systems where/when needed.

(and then we shoot by "feel"!