No Problem, Colin.
I just saw a possible similarity with a hard material bridge. It was just FYI.
Cheers.
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
No Problem, Colin.
I just saw a possible similarity with a hard material bridge. It was just FYI.
Cheers.
As for cte "talk around", I admit it's hard to communicate about the system with someone that never bothered to learn it.
The shot line is arrived at objectively.
I don't think using a Hall of Fame player is a good example for the masses. When Varner misses once every 3 days he probably aimed wrong. His stroke is grooved and is probably like a machine whereas his eyesight might depend on how much sleep he got. I just don't think this particular anecdote has any bearing on the aim vs stroke discussion. It is interesting, however.
As far as your shop staff, of course some instruction is necessary. Maybe I'm a freak of nature. I believe I knew the aim points 20 years ago just as well as I do today. The difference is that my stroke is now pretty true so I now pocket the same shots I used to miss because of stroke errors. I find it hard to believe my experience is much different from anybody else who aspires to play at a high level.
Yes, i would certainly expect the stranger to pocket them at a high percentage.
Yes each visual takes the ball to a particular pocket. There are some exceptions but in the context of your question yes.
That's why i said the pocket is the limitation. The goal is the pocket and that's what cte does, takes you to the pocket.
Sure, I have said this exact thing dozens of times. Aiming to me is a spectrum from pure feel/guessing - to perceiving concrete objective visual lines.
Since the lines aren't actually visible then that means that there will always be some amount of personal subjectivity involved. But with training that subjectivity gets less and less in my opinion until the shooter makes an instant connection with the CTE perceptions and drops into the stance fluidly. At that point people watching say, "man that guy is a natural". ;-)
As PJ has tried to explain many many times, a video does not even prove that an individual is using ANY particular aiming method. One would have to take their word for that declaration.
This is also not an issues of outcomes but instead of a means for the outcome & whether or not subjectivity either consciously or subconsciously is involved.
For you to suggest that a video could prove that one way or the other would seem to indicate that you don't understand or are disingenuous in that proposition.
I believe Anthony has made such a video that showed him using CTE & the balls going right into that 'false pocket', but I could be wrong about that.
Since you haven't (I guess) had the opportunity to work with any instructor well versed in CTE or similar methods I'd say your experience is pretty much like every decent player who learned to shoot by rote and table time. From 18 to 35 I also did that. I mean I read about GB somewhere but my pool life was put it together and start shooting.
Professional players are exactly who we want to listen to. Some are not in favor of aiming systems, some use them openly, some use them privately. But the fact is that as a group they represent the currently highest achievable skill level in pool. So how they do what they do matters.
Shane had spoken of his aiming system many times but it wasn't until someone videotaped him giving a lesson and subsequently TAR making a formal instructional video of it that people could see exactly what Shane does to aim. And it is a HUGE reason why he is so accurate. For those that choose to adopt his method I am certain most of them will see improved accuracy in their shot making as well.
Basically my feeling is that barring a physical or mental illness handicap if you're a decent player but not at the top then you have lots of room to improve no matter how good you THINK you are right now. I am absolutely certain that even good players can benefit from these aiming methods. And in fact professional players Stevie Moore, Shaun Wilkie and Phil Burford, already great players before learning CTE stand firmly in saying that that aiming method has helped their game.
Nick's stroke is certainly not grooved like a machine. Here's one of many examples of him swiping to adjust for poor bridge placement, or as I call it, poor aiming or poor alignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6LlFIZZ8E
Pat is wrong. As humans we are allowed to make a presumption of truth when interacting with each other. In context there is no logical reason for multiple with no financial reason to lie about what method they are using.
Stan "might" have a reason to lie to sell DVDs but the fact is that if he were selling access to information that didn't work then there would be dozens of testimonials to that effect out there. But the evidence is that the testimonials are overwhelmingly positive.
And the ordinary people have no reason to lie. Who cares who Gerry Williams is? Gerry makes NOTHING out of putting up videos showing himself running racks and calling out visuals. In fact it can be argued that it costs him money if would be opponents see his skill and don't gamble OR if they are inspired to learn CTE and use it to beat him in tournaments and money matches.
For Colin and JB:
Colin - fantastic job on your fixed bridge video! I love it! This is exactly the kind of thing skeptics of CTE would like to see more of, but I understand that not everything is subject to this kind of testing.
When you say that the stroke isn't that important I now see where you are coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are really saying that the stroke isn't important IF you get your bridge to the natural pivot point of the cue -- that being the point on the cue that balances out squirt with the offset aim. In other words, when I apply right english with BHE, I am pointing the cue to the right of the correct aim point which will send the cue ball to the right, but the off center hit will squirt the cue ball to the left. If you are at the pivot point of the cue, these exactly offset and the cue ball goes to the correct aim point.
Of course the above does not eliminate the necessity that you be able to hit the cue ball in a precise location. There is more to playing the game than pocketing a ball. You need to get position, too, and if you can't stroke the cue with precision then you will have trouble with that part of the game.
I had a phone consultation with Hal years ago, too. He was generous with his time and was a real interesting character. I tried to apply what he said, but honestly I didn't get that far with it. I didn't understand how it could work in all situations and I was pocketing balls pretty well anyway, so I discarded it. Here's the crux of the problem for me: I set up a shot in the side pocket, not too far away. I set up one of the center to edge positions and pocketed the ball. I set up the shot again but moved the balls and inch to the right. I hit it again and the ball missed the pocket wide. It just seemed there was a problem with the geometry. I have to assume that more modern CTE systems are able to reduce this kind of error, but don't you eventually get to a point where you are just aiming by feel anyway?
Here's a shot I set up when I got home. I picked up the cue and shot it right in center pocket. What is CTE going to do for me. Or, is CTE marketed toward people who are having problems pocketing balls?
It seems to me a lot of the debate and anger would disappear if one question could be agreed upon: If you use CTE, do you still need to use your intuition/experience/feel to pocket balls in between the CTE aim points, or does CTE tell you exactly where to aim on every shot with no further fiddling needed? If so, how can this be done when there are discrete aim points with CTE? I do not buy the explanation that it has something to do with the roundness of the balls, because nobody was ever able to demonstrate how that geometry worked on a piece of paper. I don't think anybody has a problem with the use of CTE as a means to improve pocketing ability. I think people have a problem when it is sold as the answer to everything when it doesn't seem to be clear exactly how it works beyond the basic angles you can predict from center to edge points.
Colin - fantastic job on your fixed bridge video! I love it! This is exactly the kind of thing skeptics of CTE would like to see more of, but I understand that not everything is subject to this kind of testing.
When you say that the stroke isn't that important I now see where you are coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are really saying that the stroke isn't important IF you get your bridge to the natural pivot point of the cue -- that being the point on the cue that balances out squirt with the offset aim. In other words, when I apply right english with BHE, I am pointing the cue to the right of the correct aim point which will send the cue ball to the right, but the off center hit will squirt the cue ball to the left. If you are at the pivot point of the cue, these exactly offset and the cue ball goes to the correct aim point.
Of course the above does not eliminate the necessity that you be able to hit the cue ball in a precise location. There is more to playing the game than pocketing a ball. You need to get position, too, and if you can't stroke the cue with precision then you will have trouble with that part of the game.
I had a phone consultation with Hal years ago, too. He was generous with his time and was a real interesting character. I tried to apply what he said, but honestly I didn't get that far with it. I didn't understand how it could work in all situations and I was pocketing balls pretty well anyway, so I discarded it. Here's the crux of the problem for me: I set up a shot in the side pocket, not too far away. I set up one of the center to edge positions and pocketed the ball. I set up the shot again but moved the balls and inch to the right. I hit it again and the ball missed the pocket wide. It just seemed there was a problem with the geometry. I have to assume that more modern CTE systems are able to reduce this kind of error, but don't you eventually get to a point where you are just aiming by feel anyway?
Here's a shot I set up when I got home. I picked up the cue and shot it right in center pocket. What is CTE going to do for me. Or, is CTE marketed toward people who are having problems pocketing balls?
It seems to me a lot of the debate and anger would disappear if one question could be agreed upon: If you use CTE, do you still need to use your intuition/experience/feel to pocket balls in between the CTE aim points, or does CTE tell you exactly where to aim on every shot with no further fiddling needed? If so, how can this be done when there are discrete aim points with CTE? I do not buy the explanation that it has something to do with the roundness of the balls, because nobody was ever able to demonstrate how that geometry worked on a piece of paper. I don't think anybody has a problem with the use of CTE as a means to improve pocketing ability. I think people have a problem when it is sold as the answer to everything when it doesn't seem to be clear exactly how it works beyond the basic angles you can predict from center to edge points.
Grooved doesn't necessarily mean perfect. Whatever wonky stroke he has he has had for a long time and to him it is grooved. He knows how to work with it.
John,
I think you've lumped some things together here that was not the subject at hand.
If I or Satorie or anyone else were to make a video saying that we were using CTE & missing balls all over the place there are those that would almost certainly accuse us of being a liar or of not using it correctly.
Your 'argument' goes both ways, why would Satorie, Anthony, myself, or anyone else tell lies about our experiences?
A normal video could not & would not show if one is using only objective means or is employing & utilizing a subjective data base either consciously nor subconsciously.
This 'argument' is not one that can be settled with ANY video. This type of disagreement can only be settled through critical thinking & some do not seem to be very capable of that kind of independent unbiased mind set.
I think you have soften as has Bieber/Jon, even though you both are still rather staunch supporters & advocates of the method. Cookie has saidd the he uses feel & subjectivity but has not yet clarified exactly what he meant & where that is.
I think many forget that I was rather amazed with both the assertion of total objectivity & the shost that did go with CTE based on the visuals & proper pivot where very enticing. The missed shots & the 5 shot perception video resulted in me opening my eyes to the reality of the situation. If I were going to use CTE, I would have to rely on my own subjectivity to get to the final proper line on a number of shots & since that is the case, I might as well just stay with my way which is less involved & get me to line more quickly & 'naturally'.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
If that is poor bridge placement or poor aiming, I want more of it.
...that 'swiping' (I call it cross stroking) gives you a "kind" hit, which parallel aiming doesn't.
That technique is deliberate, and a lot of players use it.
This is a bit off topic, but yours and and the post of Dan's to which you replied, infer that the top pro 9-10 ball players are exceptional potters.
imho, they are decent potters, but not among the top 1,000 potters in the world at any given time. Almost any near pro snooker player pots with greater accuracy than the top 10 pool players.
You may be familiar with posts about various good shortstops who could pot with the best, but fell down in other areas like shape play, strategic decision making, breaking, handling pressure, kicking skills and so on. Most of these additional skills require considerable dedication and a peculiar mindset that adapts to the challenges of competitive play.
US pro pool requires straight shooting potting abilities around that of a regular 50 break snooker player. However, to play the game at the pro level, it requires more knowledge of use of english than do 50 break makers in snooker, and a specialized talent in aligning to 1/2 to 3/4 ball angles with CB coming off a rail, and how to execute positional routes to get to these angles.
It is a worthy art, but it's not highly demanding in terms of potting balls. To the 99.9% of pub bangers and league players, the pool pros are very good at potting, but their insights into aiming methods ought not be treated as gospel. There are probably 50+ non-pro members of this forum who can pot a non obstructed shot with similar accuracy to that of the average US pro given a week's practice to tune in. It's all the other details of the game that separate the wheat from the chaff.
Colin
For Colin and JB:
Colin - fantastic job on your fixed bridge video! I love it! This is exactly the kind of thing skeptics of CTE would like to see more of, but I understand that not everything is subject to this kind of testing.
When you say that the stroke isn't that important I now see where you are coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are really saying that the stroke isn't important IF you get your bridge to the natural pivot point of the cue -- that being the point on the cue that balances out squirt with the offset aim. In other words, when I apply right english with BHE, I am pointing the cue to the right of the correct aim point which will send the cue ball to the right, but the off center hit will squirt the cue ball to the left. If you are at the pivot point of the cue, these exactly offset and the cue ball goes to the correct aim point.
Of course the above does not eliminate the necessity that you be able to hit the cue ball in a precise location. There is more to playing the game than pocketing a ball. You need to get position, too, and if you can't stroke the cue with precision then you will have trouble with that part of the game.
I had a phone consultation with Hal years ago, too. He was generous with his time and was a real interesting character. I tried to apply what he said, but honestly I didn't get that far with it. I didn't understand how it could work in all situations and I was pocketing balls pretty well anyway, so I discarded it. Here's the crux of the problem for me: I set up a shot in the side pocket, not too far away. I set up one of the center to edge positions and pocketed the ball. I set up the shot again but moved the balls and inch to the right. I hit it again and the ball missed the pocket wide. It just seemed there was a problem with the geometry. I have to assume that more modern CTE systems are able to reduce this kind of error, but don't you eventually get to a point where you are just aiming by feel anyway?
Here's a shot I set up when I got home. I picked up the cue and shot it right in center pocket. What is CTE going to do for me. Or, is CTE marketed toward people who are having problems pocketing balls?
It seems to me a lot of the debate and anger would disappear if one question could be agreed upon: If you use CTE, do you still need to use your intuition/experience/feel to pocket balls in between the CTE aim points, or does CTE tell you exactly where to aim on every shot with no further fiddling needed? If so, how can this be done when there are discrete aim points with CTE? I do not buy the explanation that it has something to do with the roundness of the balls, because nobody was ever able to demonstrate how that geometry worked on a piece of paper. I don't think anybody has a problem with the use of CTE as a means to improve pocketing ability. I think people have a problem when it is sold as the answer to everything when it doesn't seem to be clear exactly how it works beyond the basic angles you can predict from center to edge points.
Dan if you are happy with your game then don't change anything. I can tell you this, the shot you showed is something that any decent player can whack in with no thought a high percentage of the time.
But move that ball another foot to the right and now try to pocket it in the left corner. I think you will agree that the degree of difficulty goes up considerably. What CTE did for me is take those shots and make them into a really concrete aim that is dependable. My make percentage on those shots went WAY up.
To the point that I will now take on shots that I formerly would have avoided as nearly impossible. So for me it made all the shots like the one you show stupidly consistent and the tough to "looks impossible" ones way more consistent.
I have long said that for me CTE is like having a key ring with six master keys that unlock every lock in a skyscraper. If you were the handyman you would go up to any lock and visually see what key is right for the lock most of the time. And sometimes you would come to a lock you hadn't see and then you would probably be able to instantly discard four of the keys and have two to choose from giving you a 50% chance to open the door.
At this point I am so immersed in using aiming methods, and I don't ALWAYS use CTE for every shot, that I can barely remember what it was like not to have these tools as a player. I know that I have a much wider range of shots available to me and zero fear anymore of taking on any shot. My apprehension level when facing a "tough" shot has decreased immensely. The reason is that there are few actual tough shots for me anymore since I don't get scared of large cut angles or long shots due to having a method of aiming that is really concrete and dependable.
So in conclusion, if you're able to make all the shots you are faced with to a high percentage then perhaps you're good to go and don't need to change a thing. I had adapted my game so as to NOT take certain "trouble" shots and after learning to aim accurately I now have no need to adapt for trouble shots. (of course I still have a wonky stroke that goes from great to crap constantly, I still misjudge positions, and I also still try to "throw" balls in to force position too often so that's all room for improvement.) AND I could be way more diligent in applying the aiming methods I know accurately, I can be very lazy and this of course affects accuracy. So it's up to you whether a method can be beneficial to you. I would advise to you take Colin Colenso's pocketing test and Dr. Dave's Billiard University test and see where you stand. If near the top then go play more pool and be happy. If not then perhaps think about trying some of these great methods of aiming.
It's a different game.
https://youtu.be/7LexbtZC10s?t=162
You know what game I pocket balls the best on? Golf! Which on the surface makes no sense since it uses the biggest balls and the littlest pockets. It's all mental.
Last edited:
There is a degree of BHE which he is using in that stroke, but not in a way I'd ever apply it. I think it's more subconscious steering, than a conscious effort on his behalf. He actually only gets about 1/4 tip inside after that massive swipe.
Watch his 2 shots from the 7 minute mark in this video and then tell me you want his stroke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajE9FvI0xuA
Edit: This link should take you straight to the 7 minute mark: https://youtu.be/ajE9FvI0xuA?t=7m1s
Last edited:
Ron Swanson
Banned
Talking of 20 years ago, and how i played as a complete beginner, I'd say i miss more extremely difficult shots now, but far fewer very easy ones.
Conclusion? Aiming irrelevant, stroke everything. Aiming has remained the same, or perhaps worsened, whilst consistency in delivering the cue smoothly has vastly improved.
Context. If your intention was to show that CTE doesn't work then it would be expected that you could demonstrate WHY it doesn't work to the best of your ability along with the demonstration.
If your intention was to ask for advice on WHETHER you were applying it correctly then that would be looked at differently.
But if you just put up a video and said "I am using CTE and missing so it doesn't work" then based on the body of dispute leading up to such a video would lead to some people saying that there was too much bias to get a fair review. This is one reason in diving that high and low scores are thrown out, to eliminate bias. For the most part though normal folks with no financial investment can be presumed to be telling the truth in their demonstration.
Rick I honestly think you are nitpicking this far too much. Let's take the five way shot you speak of. Listen go to the pool room and set that shot up and let feel players try them. You will 100% see that their results are way off for most of the shots. Even if a CTE user did some kind of "adjustment" there is no doubt that the results are WAY closer on every shot than what feel players can achieve. That's the whole point.
In games I have tried those shots when I had no other choice. The make percentage for a three rail to the side is still low but the "i got really damn close" percentage goes WAY WAY WAY up when using cte to figure the shot line. And trust me when you nail one in league it really makes your team and the spectators go nuts. You have to earn that "high" and I am really glad CTE gives me a way to aim shots like that when that's all I have to shoot.
Prove it.
That's where we've come to when the points put out get ignored & talked around with nothing to really counter those points.
We conversed most of yesterday in PM's til you decided to cease, yet you're willing to do it here.
Someone says something that Y'all don't agree & the response is prove it with a video even though it is an intellectual issue.
So now here we are with you saying something that I & others do not agree.
So, Prove it. A video will not be proof.
You can't.
So, it's he said, she said.
I thought we agreed that neither would be able to convince the other.
I have a rather high IQ & can certainly understand language. I do not have to have an experience or complete understanding of a subject to be able to be taught.
Do teachers teach what is already understood by a student? NO & they use words & language to teach.
Best Wishes.